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

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: The topic marker -'e'

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected])

• From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:15:56 -0800 (PST)
• Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1258953356; bh=1m+jXyB7BcFnwz0dWRSO9aYJFlmBw2TqRPD45K2LufA=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=urphS+YAFaESsQlWtaHs5yspNj3hKYPjmouPxFH1PwUiRaq/3ud2JgmFptBjOZetcy/CEYhaAFC5MSbERYRNo80KDPdF8juupM2DP8Psjsl5IAlI1YPd3S1ebYJfrRQ8A5WCIEDBrU8fgISFj5ihi2PlTgiLRNwurRyezgEP920=
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=plJtUseZw3id5VZmlHGklFJNX2dCkmDn8TijYPkzCJhWbOFK2dsQmy8PVkKgv69HdKLvR/Flbfe7T79W8Y0rolkxn36q73ZIBBc1Zp3smg65QCTZTeXTO6SBZAAYijtab9Jy5FFo3HjiEmxqgAgzni7o0HJGOxEF34r1Pf5ou4Q=;
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Steven Lytle <[email protected]> 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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The topic marker -'e'
    • From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: The topic marker -'e'
    • From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Next by Date: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Previous by thread: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Next by thread: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level