tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 03 10:49:58 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Corrections from peHruS
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Corrections from peHruS
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:49:54 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:51:02 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> 1) Since the pronoun {'e'} is used primarily with verbs of "seeing, knowing,"
> I, too, do not know if I should have used it with {Sap} "volunteer." TKD p65.
It seems unlikely that {Sap} works with {'e'}. I'd be uncertain
if you mean that you volunteer TO DO something, or if you are
volunteering as information that something was done. It might
indeed be fine, but we have no usage to go by and the gloss
definition doesn't sound good:
qatlhej 'e' vISap. "I volunteer that I accompany you."
It doesn't work well for me.
> 2) Since SAOs using {'e'} always take a prefix indicating a third-person
> singular object, {'e' qara'} cannot be acceptable. TKD p65.
Well, I doubt it is very good form, but since the prefix
shortcut indicating a first or second person indirect object was
revealed to us long after TKD was published, there is a very
plausable argument that it would apply here. I would personally
tend to avoid it, but accept it as others use it, and I'd watch
to see if Okrand tells us one way or the other.
> 3) MO says that verb pronominal prefixes INDICATE the subject and the object.
You seem to be ignoring several people including myself who say
we really don't care one way or the other. You are arguing with
yourself on this point, and you seem to have forgotten the point
of the original arguement.
Someone said that the direct object of {ra'} could be a person
being addressed. Several canon examples were given as evidence
to this. You challenged that assertion based upon the idea that
the prefix "indicates" the direct object, but doesn't "equal"
the direct object. The point is that since the "indicated"
direct object was second person and Klingons are not widely
known for speaking to inanimate objects, it is clear that the
direct object of {ra'} can be the person addressed.
That's what second person MEANS. The second person is the person
being addressed.
You don't directly address this problem with your assertion that
the direct object of {ra'} can't be the person addressed.
Instead, you continue arguing like a deaf person who can speak
and who continues speaking with his eyes closed.
We've heard your argument about "indicates" vs. "equals" and we
really don't care. It is a diversion from the simple truth that
the direct object of {ra'} obviously can be the person addressed.
And yet, you continue:
> Perhaps he does mean that these prefixes ARE the subject and object as well,
> without having said so explicitly. "When the subject and/or object is first
> or second person, the prefix on the verb must be the proper one." TKD p60.
> To my mind, this still does not prove that INDICATE means EQUALS; but, for
> convenience we just might be able to avoid argument by ASSUMING that
> pronominal prefixes wholly take the place of the implied-but-not-necessarily-
> written/spoken subject. "puq vIlegh jIH. jIH mulegh puq. Actually, the
> first- and second-person pronouns are seldom used in sentences of this
> type......" TKD p60.
I have not noticed anybody caring about this except you, and I
don't see what you are trying to accomplish with this except to
seek a fight.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh