tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 22:36:00 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)



Subjects aren't distinct from agents. Both intransitive and transitive verbs
have subjects. Both transitive ('kill') and intransitive verbs ('run') can
have agents as subjects.
You equated the subject of a verb with the object, for which there is no
justification. I equated two subjects.
lay'tel SIvten
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 <lytlesw@gmail.com> 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 <suomichris@gmail.com
> >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 <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Now you've totally lost me.
> >> > lay'tel SIvten
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Christopher Doty <
> suomichris@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 20:25, Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com>
> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>






Back to archive top level