tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 23:02:32 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Tracy Canfield <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:40:00 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3W9z3ZoKxLxvbVo5ynQUHvEVuVF8r0E8GK/RTGb7JNg=; b=pgpFCklaJvNSOlpbhIYjanS37PoTuSHn0CFoj0Z+2bYpQUW4NG+QcGiJIYVM56w6dr cHU/hAw0XQA0iHfmRfnzL1gfa5h2fkInALS+ULwVZT6r4petasBhwsIIwPrZtWKxP6pp l/PWOXecWb4Z9NGnR+4vJwQAJSStOEpF1EXRA=
- 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=O5XiAVBbbMnfOq9AiGgJ3IWccDrKVQMVmiBk8rjAZQ2U+YIPjhNWjrXnEwtb13meQ6 x309Roj6LhH81J85LMav/mGoTQBTcMQi/17xLVPaAxxcqAYhNNIyoMU5DCTvlKOvJ6A6 +SPFlVzDgO2umZluI9xWX1Fn5Ko7N1ICEKR+s=
- 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]>
mIS puq
"puq" is the subject, but it isn't an agent.
2009/11/23 Steven Lytle <[email protected]>:
> 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 <[email protected]>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 <[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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>