tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 03 13:33:47 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

-lu' with type 2 verbal suffixes?

MorphemeAddict ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol taghwI']

I just came across a non-canon phrase that uses {-lu'} with {-vIp}, in which 
it looks like {-vIp} refers to the *object* of the verb with {-lu'},
and I wonder if it makes sense to do this.  {-vIp} refers to how the 
*subject* feels about doing the action (TKD 4.2.2, p. 36).  
The example I found is {HurghtaHvIS DuQlu'chugh, jagh jup je 
DuQvIpbe'lu'ba'}.  In this example the {-vIp} seems to refer to the {jagh jup je}, which is 
the object of the verb.  I think the intent is "If (some)one stabs while it's 
dark, (then) enemy and friend are obviously not afraid of being stabbed", i.e., 
the enemy and friend are in no danger from the sightless stabber.    However, 
the latter clause really means something more like "(some)one is obviously not 
afraid to stab enemy and friend", and so the sightless stabber is still a 
very real danger to enemy and friend even though it's dark.  The same argument 
holds for the other type 2 verbal suffixes [VS2] (-rup}, {-qang}, and {-nIS}.  

I found four examples in canon of {-lu'} with a VS2.  

1.  it made him/her willing to die = HeghqangmoHlu'pu'  (TKD p. 45)
      " {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} = (some)one was willing to make her die | 
(some)one made her willing to die "
       In this example {-qang} does not refer to the willingness of the 
subject of {HeghmoH}, but rather to the willingness of the subject of {Hegh}, who 
is the object of {HeghmoH}.  
       I think the presence of {-moH} on a verb changes the interpretation of 
the VS2s so that they apply either to the subject *or* the object of the 
{-moH} verb, and adding ambiguity in the process.  But the original phrase 
{DuQvIpbe'lu'ba'} has no {-moH}, and so this ambiguity does not apply.

2.  One need not enjoy virtue. = ghob tIvnISbe'lu'. (TKW p. 48)
       The object of  {tIvnISbe'lu'}  is  {'e'}, a pronoun referring to a 
statement; i.e. something which can neither {tIv} nor {-nIS}.  Hence {-nIS} here 
refers to the indefinite subject.

3.  Survival must be earned. = yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'. (TKW p. 125)
       Again the object of {bajnISlu'} is {'e'}, a pronoun referring to a 
statement; i.e. something which cannot {baj} or {-nIS}.  Hence {-nIS} refers to 
the indefinite subject here too.

4.  Victory must be earned. = yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'. (TKW p. 125)
       This example is functionally identical to #3.

Examples 2, 3, and 4 require the VS2 to refer to the subject, even though the 
subject is indefinite.  The gloss of Example 1 indicates that the VS2 refers 
to the object of the verb, but it's the interaction with {-moH} which allows 
this, not the VS2 itself.  So for a VS2 to refer to a noun, that noun must be 
either the subject of a verb (to which the VS2 can be attached), or the verb 
must have {-moH} so that the ambiguity thus introduced allows the noun to be 
either the subject or the object.

As for how to say "I am not afraid of being stabbed", perhaps {muDuQ 'e' 
vISIQvIpbe'} ("I am not afraid to endure him stabbing me") is good enough.  
Applied to the original situation, {jagh jup je DuQvIpbe'lu'ba'} would become 
{luDuQlu' 'e' luSIQvIpbe'ba' jagh jup je}.  

In any case, {jagh jup je DuQvIpbe'lu'ba'} requires a prefix {lu-} (which is 
frequently left out [KGT pp. 171-2]) because of the plural object with {-lu'}.

Comments?
lay'tel SIvten

Back to archive top level