tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 22:26:11 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:24:43 -0800
- 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 :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ENpIc61rbSdYUpMbzO1Pn/y4RuE7GC7wZFmg/5PociQ=; b=uP8Hl5SihJCVyAStJV/mmn6Kjcm+FaO4mMQk1MNQwopRBoZcarsZ9c/JtlbbI27s3M 8Aih77gK6JGDDoCrW1zGPlrMwSz2paJ8gVhkSaWpho0MA0JsRLc4xJixE0hkEWSRDBhM cppNDrk1CrmF1P0oJ4vdWtYYdSPbO/uTxx3Jc=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=heN+JC8MRN+okUS/mqoT8WmMMwY5q4Pv+IoL0/gV1+7s7th8jdVGtw8d/S4zq2RY32 4Tj42EKSu1avvCGgqB7ybNOPD4gUeL7c0qSaWvXmU3x+LNoFOA3Qq/Glvbs+/qMf1tIr 2iSZuZK3U3hfhXnjrrcD9Ug+GJsFceCKYHAsU=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Yes, well, robots made more sense than trees...
3plS is "third plural subject" (subject being from intransitive verbs,
and distinct from "agent" for transitive verbs).
Chris
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 22:18, Steven Lytle <[email protected]> wrote:
> But we cannot translate "maHoH Sor" into English as "We kill robots".
> What does "3plS" mean? I assume that "3pl" is "third person plural". "ma-"
> is 1st person plural-no object.
> lay'tel SIvten
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Christopher Doty <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> If, as you say:
>>
>> ma-pum Sor
>> 3plS-accuse tree
>>
>> could mean "We trees accuse," then
>>
>> ma-HoH Sor
>> 3plS-kill tree
>>
>> could mean "We trees kill." We could translate this into English as
>> "We kill robots," which mean that we are robots and kill things.
>> Actually, more analogous given word order differences would be "Robots
>> we kill."
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 21:49, Steven Lytle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Now you've totally lost me.
>> > lay'tel SIvten
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Christopher Doty <[email protected]
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 20:25, Steven Lytle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > I don't see any connection between what I suggested and "We kill
>> robots".
>> >> In
>> >> > the first case, there are two subjects (ma- "we", Sor "tree(s)"), and
>> >> since
>> >> > they are both subjects, simply equate them; interpret them as meaning
>> the
>> >> > same thing.
>> >> > Your example of "We kill robots" is totally different. There is one
>> >> subject
>> >> > and one object. There is no justification for equating "we" with
>> >> "robots".
>> >> > lay'tel SIvten
>> >>
>> >> These are exactly the same if the interpretation of "pum" is as the verb
>> >> accuse.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>