tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 21:22:15 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:21:05 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/W2jaitV9h2SY/BnTyud3e8F1jKHW3Dgia8fLv3c8p8=; b=pXM0sBvTpZsCzq6oGHs1hH9szfqz7SzC7UdEyF4rzFSNJf8f802jSzC9peFI+kA4Lo QCJHaAcNrC4aC5Zgg0TMpdJWFsOCJjyivLVm//Sh/Bx5sjMtNZGjnQSZ8z0Xe+W1nUpL 8BVnxow3VpAqvZPyPFI9Ofmv2UWQv/2bi6DZc=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=RwZXrN0ctrvA/JXrgYTscRfrqREXlEs0KzkHiG5C+SniY0hrarSlBFT7I09ZvNRodO yfdy2cgugrnFZDzDOf3ywMn+khdRQfMZ1ZHjNPD+r0keEUb5yLjL8wJwvmuPh8TqB88n FDRZ7vEEJ4yGH1Typ9L1L28W/0T75kX5t5XE4=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Terrence Donnelly <
[email protected]> wrote:
> --- 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
>
>
>
>
What evidence is there that "Sor" is third person? (And "ma-" is 1st person,
not second, but you know that.)
lay'tel SIvten