tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:24:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
priceless (was: Re: KLBC: names)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: priceless (was: Re: KLBC: names)
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:26:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
This whole {-lu'wI'} idea was mine. I thought it was a good one,
but listening to the confused responses it drew, I've come to
agree that it doesn't seem to work. I did mention it on the MSN
group which Okrand supposedly monitors, but I'm not exactly
holding my breath.
Anyway, unless Okrand ever returns to that list and finds the
idea interesting enough to validate it, I give up on it. I don't
intend to use it. People didn't understand it and I can see why.
I choose to agree with those who don't like it.
My goal is communication and this one didn't communicate. Please
allow it to die without excessive bruises to the ribs from
excessive kicking after the vital signs are gone.
charghwI'
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:58:42 -0800 (PST) "Anthony.Appleyard"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "William H. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:-
> > [for "priceless" try:-]
> > ngev - He sells it
> > ngevlu' - one sells it
> > ngevlu'Qo' - one refuses to sell it
> > ngevlu'Qo'wI' - one which one refuses to sell
>
> "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> replied:-
> > The last step in that doesn't follow. "-lu'" indicates that the subject of
> > the sentence is indefinite. So there's no stated subject ... "-wI'" ... says
> > that the subject is the thing we're talking about ...
>
> This thread seems to have amalgamated with the current <ghunlu'wI'> thread
> about whether or not {-lu'} is enough like a passivizer to divert the {-wI'}
> from subject to object, same as {-lu'} makes the pronoun prefix agreement
> treat the object as the subject.