tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 23 10:26:08 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: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:24:30 -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=0myydIiNa1Yw7KfN6wr6xZpk+lXf7ypBRRf8Igtaw+c=; b=MbcrzGvClETyJYnamkD8i7g/2MiOAQB8OviP0+NtZXMVx6hhb0on6+ZloY9OJzoplR rbv1XGA6wBpjR7zOs7dZDxGn03n2wbisaSqjqFdExXrdEcGXai1ucSjrqgW3xV1FWVmV lAvGZunKyrodaJZ8BhOIgiXlZGl1wg+snttmg=
- 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=mWrgjdO1i6hhnK7DK9HFCBvxLnBUxqCfVP6aSa6OeBgkeRJKzJKgEUCbQ6rOyxTOe9 SxGmSQRty3v6p+AXrRTk80nhFvsHjbXvfuLW5+rGdO2dn0iFyWrHhDS46ysxKO1i0b8F C6cS6whmQCxP06vON3pvjQBW96R77a26549Ak=
- 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]>
As I said in my last email, the truly analogous case would be "Robots we kill."
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:49, Steven Lytle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Christopher Doty <[email protected]>wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Dude. I am not getting paid to teach you linguistics.
>>
>> Subjects and agents are distinct. In English (and Klingon, and a
>> butt-load of other languages), subjects and agents get treated the
>> same (he runs, he kills him). However, there is a second butt-load of
>> languages where subjects and OBJECTS are treated the same, and AGENTS
>> are treated differently (e.g., if forced to use English, him runs, he
>> kills him). Thus, the 'S' that I was using to gloss that morpheme
>> means that it is a prefix which does not indicate an object. Because
>> terms like subject and agent can be surprising loaded, these are often
>> simply shorted in linguistics to S, A, and O.
>>
>> > You equated the subject of a verb with the object, for which there is no
>> > justification. I equated two subjects.
>>
>> Because you decided that Sor was a subject (and a 1pl subject at that)
>> a priori. What I was pointing out is that, if we decide a priori what
>> is what, then there is no reason for the "robots" in "We kill robots"
>> to be considered an object; it is actually a subject, because I
>> decided it is a subject (even though there is no justification for
>> this). So no, I did exactly the same thing.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I didn't pick their role a priori. "Sor" is a subject because it
> follows its verb (you know, OVS, and all that?)
> By the same token, objects follow their verb in English.
> So it's you who is being arbitrary, not I.
> I did one thing, and you did something different.
>
> lay'tel SIvten
>
>
>
>