tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 15 20:35:31 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: impersonal verbs (was: Re: ghunlu'wI')
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: impersonal verbs (was: Re: ghunlu'wI')
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:18:15 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony.Appleyard <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, November 15, 1997 8:01 AM
Subject: impersonal verbs (was: Re: ghunlu'wI')
> The pronoun prefixes in {Dalegh} / {Daleghlu'} seem to show that {X-lu'}
is
>somewhere between a pure impersonal and a pure passive. {qoreQ Daleghlu'} =
>"unspecified sees you, Korax"; moving the object of an impersonal
transitive
>verb to the subject's position e.g. would be about the only thing needed to
>turn this into a true passive **{Daleghlu' qoreQ} "you, Korax, are seen".
The name {qoreQ} here is being used as direct address. I have yet to see
any evidence that you can place a third-person noun into a place which the
prefix indicates is something other than third-person, and have it be the
equivalent of English apposition. In fact, the Okrand-approved "indirect
object prefixes" would seem to be evidence against it. {Doch qanob} means
"I give you the thing," not "I give you, Thing."
Furthermore, when you use {-lu'} it simply means there is no subject. I see
no reason to accept that putting a third-person noun (such as a name) in the
subject position of a verb which explicitly has no subject should do what
you say.
Your sentences are examples merely of direct address.
qoreQ Daleghlu'.
Korex, someone sees you.
Daleghlu' qoreQ.
Someone sees you, Korex.
SuStel
Stardate 97875.0