tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 21:16:59 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: The topic marker -'e'

Terrence Donnelly (terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net) [KLI Member]



--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:

> I disagree on both counts.
> "Sor" can be plural, so it can mean 'trees'.
> The subject of "mapum" is 'we'. Thus in "mapum Sor" the
> subject "Sor" is
> also the subject "we", hence "we trees". While this is
> controversial, it's
> not necessarily ungrammatical. It* is* definitely not
> canonical.
> Transitive verbs can take the no-object prefixes. So even
> though transitive
> "pum" means 'accuse', it can still have no object mentioned
> and form verbs
> like "mapum", "jIpum", etc.
> It's the intransitive verb "pum" that can't take (as far as
> we know)
> lay'tel SIvten

According to the law of {rom}, {mapum Sor} is illegal not because the verb is plural and the subject possibly singular, but because they don't agree in person: {ma-} being second person and {Sor} third. I think this makes the example not controversial, but wrong..

-- ter'eS






Back to archive top level