tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 22 12:15:37 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:53:37 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Neal Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
>>The only way I see them "handled differently" is that the null prefix
>>has been co-opted -- or corrupted? :-) -- to be able to indicate "no
>>subject *and* no object".
>
>Technically, there IS a subject - we don't know it, or the sentence doesn't
>require it. But it's there.
Well, no. Technically, there is no subject. Something obviously performs
whatever action you specified or had the quality you indicated, but the
*sentence* has no subject.
Still, I suspect we're thinking along the same lines, but we're using a
different vocabulary to express it.
SuStel
Stardate 97894.1