tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 15 12:23:19 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ambiguous locatives
jIja'pu':
>> verghDaq lupDujHom jormoHmeH ghoqwI', Se' SeHlaw chu'.
>>
>> Where did the explosion take place? Where was the spy when it happened?
>> I think this sentence supports the interpretation that the spy blew up
>> the shuttlecraft by remote control and he was probably nowhere near the
>> shuttlebay at the time.
ja' charghwI':
>I think this is a remnant of the oddness of verbs with {-moH}.
>There are two actions here. One is causation. One is explosion.
>The action of exploding occurs where the subject of that action
>explodes, which is on the dock. It doesn't look like the subject
>here because of {-moH}, but the subject of the action of
>exploding is definitely {lupDujHom}.
Okay, we've reached the point where further debate is not productive.
You maintain that {-moH} changes objects into subjects, which I don't
accept at all. From my point of view, this is the kind of linguistic
sleight-of-hand that you so often accuse me of. When faced with an
example that contradicts your position, you appear to have redefined
the example with a wave of your hand. :-)
You: "Locatives invariably apply to the subject."
Me: "Look at this one! The locative obviously applies to the object."
You: "That's not the object. {-moH} turned it into a subject."
We'll have to disagree peacefully on this one, at least until someone
else manages to convince one of us to switch sides.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh