tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 10 12:02:58 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lopno' - looking for general comment
On Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
...
> >You might think this is always true with {-lu'}, but in fact,
> >most useage of {-lu'} has heavy cues that something is afoot
> >before {-lu'} ever gets here.
>
> Such as?
Aww, maaaaan! I wish I had time to dig up good examples.
Instead, I'll backpedal to say that it is one layer of
complexity to recognize that the prefix doesn't match person
with the direct object I just heard, so the prefix-indicated
direct object is actually the INdirect object. It is another
layer of complexity to think that a prefix is pointing to a
subject and an object, but then discover that {-lu'} reverses
these roles.
It gets REALLY complex when the prefix DOES match person with
the direct object, but then {-lu'} turns the indicated subject
into the direct object, but then, no it doesn't because we
already have a direct object and its person doesn't match the
one indicated by the combination of the prefix and {-lu'}, so
the indicated subject is actually the indirect object...
I mean, let's get a little bit real here. It's a stupid way to
construct a sentence if you expect anyone to understand you.
Whether or not it fits strict, extended (by combination) rules
of grammar is irrellavant. People won't understand you if you do
this. Whatever time you saved uttering fewer syllables, you will
more than lose from people trying to sort out what you said in
their minds before pretending to understand what you are talking
about.
SuStel, you and I agree on this point. So, why argue so much
about the details?
> >2. The suffix {-lu'} requires that the prefix always refers to a
> >third person singular object, or no object at all.
>
> The prefix is one which is *normally* used for third person objects, but it
> is used to *indicate* a first- or second-person object. {jIH vIDellu'} "I
> am described." The object is first person singular, and the prefix
> indicates this.
I think you are intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying.
There is no prefix which does not indicate third person object
or no object (before the {-lu'} is applied) that can be used
with {-lu'}. {*qaleghlu'} is gibberish. {*muleghlu'} is
gibberish. If, as you are choosing, we limit our terminology
discussing prefixes to ONLY their representation AFTER {-lu'} is
applied, then we have no way of discussing illegal combinations
of prefixes with {-lu'}.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98600.3
charghwI'