tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 07 00:17:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-lI'}
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-lI'}
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 00:17:45 -0800
At 18:56 97-11-04 -0800, you wrote:
}
}
}
} qoror here. I would like to offer an opinion. I've noticed that
}often when there's a KLBC message with {-lI'} on a verb with something
}inanimate as the subject. Usually the Grammarian replies something like
}"Does this [thing] really have free will and intentions of its own?"
*I* don't say that. Do I? I would say {bIrchoHlI' lom} or {DejlI' HuD}
with absolutely no implication that either was intentional on anyone's part.
}offer that it is *not* necessarily the subject be the vay' with the
}"definite end in mind." (That's not from TKD, it's just firmly implanted
}in my mind.) It says in TKD that it's the *activity* that has the definite
}end in mind. There is nothing in 4.2.7 that suggests or implies that it is
}the *subject* that is intending. TKD offers {chollI'} as an example and
}suggests the subject might be a missile. Carrying this a short step
}farther, say something with {-lI'} is in a story and an inanimate object as
}the subject. It might not necessarily be someone else in the story that's
}doing the expecting, it could just be the reader.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian