tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 30 17:55:33 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch
>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:31:59 -0800 (PST)
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
>On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:20:33 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now that I've gotten the argument out of the way, I'll suggest a few
>> more examples of {V-moH} with no object.
>>
>> {jInguvmoH} -- "I paint."
>
>I'd be interested to know the difference you see in meaning
>between {*jInguvmoH} and {vInguvmoHlu'}. I suggest there IS no
>difference in meaning. Meanwhile, one uses existing rules of
>grammar while the other depends upon an extention of an
>interpretation of a single, unexplained example in canon.
Ooog. Agree with ghunchu'wI' or don't (personally I'm not sure he's
actually said anything that makes a practical difference), but I can't see
how "vInguvmoHlu'" can mean anything but "one paints me"/"I am painted."
Remember, "-lu'" makes the SUBJECT indefinite. The *SUBJECT*, not the
object. I think you're getting blinded by this idea of an "underlying
subject" and have now forgotten where the actual subject of the sentence
is.
~mark