tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 13:04:45 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-lI'}
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-lI'}
- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:04:43 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from MarianSchwartz on Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:01:00 -0800 (PST))
>Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:01:00 -0800 (PST)
>From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>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.
> Opinions?
Sounds good to me. In fact, it needn't even be something else in the
story, to me. So long as the process is one that approaches a goal, -lI'
works--even if the only ones "expecting" the goal are the readers, and not
those in the story. A story which told of a rock falling off a cliff with
no observers could still say "pumlI' nagh."
~mark