tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 09 14:12:06 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: 'e' x-lu'??
mujang ghunchu'wI':
> ja' HovqIj:
> >Going through TKW I realized the two sentences
> >yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'
> >and
> >yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'
> >
> >I suppose this has been discused before, but why did MO use <'e'
> >bajnISlu'> and not the expected form <net bajnIS> in these examples?
> >Maybe the reason is that he wanted to parallel the <-lu'> from the first
> >part of the sentence?
>
> It might be worth considering what TKD 6.2.5 actually says about {net}:
>
> | When the verb of the second sentence has a third-person subject
> | (that is, the pronominal prefix is 0) but the intended meaning is
> | /one/ or /someone/, rather than /he/, /she/, /it/, or /they/,
> | {net} is used instead of {'e'}.
>
> Note that it doesn't say "{net} is *always* used instead of {'e'}."
Yes, I noted that. But it neither says "usually" nor "sometimes" etc.
The _absence_ of an "always" made me ask whether the use of <net> was
obligatory or not.
> It's possible that the intended meaning with {'e' X-lu'} isn't quite
> "one" or "someone" -- the translation uses English passive voice and
> not an impersonal subject.
I don't understand. I thought that <-lu'> meant "indefinite subject",
i.e. "one" or "someone", in the first place, and that the passive voice
in English was only used for better style.
> One could also argue that using the suffix
> {-lu'} makes the verb not have a third-person subject, so {net} is not
> strictly necessary.
>
Maybe, I'm not sure. After all, the definition says "When the verb of
the second sentence has a third-person subject (that is, the pronominal
prefix is 0) but the intended meaning is /one/ or /someone/" This is
exactly the condition under which <-lu'> is used in simple sentences.
(The 0-prefix is required here since in a SAO construction the object of
the second sentence is always third person singular.)
> >Thinking about this, is the use of <'e' x-lu'> under normal
> >circumstances (i.e. not in a proverb) wrong or just uncommon?
>
> In my opinion, {net} is definitely preferred, but I don't think {'e' X-lu'}
> is ever actually *wrong*. It's probably a cultural or style thing,
After the canon examples in TKW it can no longer be outright *wrong*, of
course... ;-)
I think, all in all we don't disagree. I had a similar suspicion, but I
wanted to hear some other voices.
HovqIj
>
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'