tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 23 06:42:00 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: The topic marker -'e'

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected])

• From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:40:48 -0800 (PST)
• Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1258987248; bh=Ff4cENoLiRcYdAgyNfwC0puztf1/Ikd/GVnNkoFcZek=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=5Icu/X4JSjqURwmQDiEbignUZF6Vk0TGkJ9BHq3vfagj401B12ARbOruwshnLJYgvynuTBPH1oh5+godl3xO3ZdyTA5RvBsJtyvMlza5TnUCVM7sAFecXCsnD1CYCvg9qeX7CzDbJgFXXeqgJEELKadrZgbjQamVVU8V/LU9Z+c=
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=E1kcvTOy0qdBv9DYbEAK7rWMhzvVexJTmJWIEMPBEU+JdlumjKy+atrS7wTOq9ybgC6cNF4njIwVq2CHaP2vqYQjEnTR1cAvntwqrz5qWuygQZEdLvCyIbdtZLLNEhNCDCc2d9OGj72jSYiFNB/NrWJeHBXYYfA3gYaH6YD+jeU=;
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Steven Lytle <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 11:21 PM
> 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.)

HIvqa' veqlargh.

-- ter'eS
> 

• References:
  • Re: The topic marker -'e'
    • From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Next by Date: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Previous by thread: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Next by thread: Re: The topic marker -'e'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level