tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 27 04:42:01 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day (bo-)
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day (bo-)
- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:41:49 CST
ok, obviously, my position is much weaker than I thought
in the beginning. I'll answer some points, however:
> ja' HomDoq:
> >> >In order to be able to carry
> >> >{-wI'} the verb has to have a 3rd person sg subject.
> >>
> >> I disagree. The verb should have *no* subject; the noun created by {-wI'}
> >> becomes the subject, and can certainly be plural.
> >>
> >as my own example shows, I made a mistake w.r.t. sg/pl, but the
> >verb cannot have a 1st or 2nd person subject, qar'a'?
>
> If you wish to consider that {-wI'} fits on a verb having an overt subject,
> I don't see a reason for you to limit it to third person subjects.
> Assuming {luHoHwI'} is acceptable, what would be different about
> {DaHoHwI'}? There doesn't seem to be a distinction in the grammatical
> basis for "they who kill him" and "you who kill him".
>
my original thought went along "one" in "one who kills..." is like
the subject of "kill", and can be pluralized to "ones". That doesn't
work with the "-er" derivation at all.... so fagettaboutit
> >(you make the *additional* claim that it "should have *no* subject")
>
> It's not an "additional" claim. It's an explicit *lack* of extension from
> the way {-wI'} is described and used in The Klingon Dictionary.
>
I meant of course "in addition to what I claim"
> >{HoH} can only mean one of five things (disregarding tenses in English):
> >
> >i) he/she/it kills
> >ii) they kill
> >iii) he/she/it kills him/her/it
> >iv) he/she/it kills them
> >v) they kill them
> >
> >other combinations of subject/object require prefixes different from 0
> >and are thus (in my mind) not represented by {HoH}.
>
> Huh?! Where do you get the bizarre idea that {HoH} only works with the
> null prefix? The first time {HoH} appears in TKD is on page 37:
>
> {choHoHvIp} "You are afraid to kill me" ({HoH} "kill")
>
> Here, "kill" is undeniably represented by {HoH}, even while the combination
> of subject/object is "you [do something to] me" and requires the {cho-}
> prefix.
>
I was talking about the word, *not* the syllable
> And you're (intentionally?) ignoring the meaning of the bare verb {HoH}
> without a prefix.
why, of course! My whole point was, that the un-prefixed verb form
cannot be used in a sentence. I no longer claim that. But I still
think it is only used in conjunction with suffixes {-wI'}, {-meH}
and {-ghach}
> That's how it's presented in TKD, as just plain "kill"
> without a subject or object mentioned.
>
obviously, that was the whole point of the disagreement:
whether this is the best way to translate {HoH} *to a beginner*
> >It may sound strange
> >to you, but in order to form {vIHoH} I "replace" the 0-prefix by {vI-}
>
> Now I'm confused. I guess you're emphasizing that you never see {HoH} as
> lacking a prefix?
exactly (note though, that I retracted this strong form of my claim)
> I'm not really understanding what your point is anymore,
> so I can no longer reply. Perhaps that is for the best.
>
hope I clarified my point.
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]