tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 21:22:15 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: The topic marker -'e'

Steven Lytle (lytlesw@gmail.com)



On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Terrence Donnelly <
terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- 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
>
>
>
>
What evidence is there that "Sor" is third person? (And "ma-" is 1st person,
not second, but you know that.)

lay'tel SIvten






Back to archive top level