tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 14:30:48 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: The topic marker -'e'

ghunchu'wI' (qunchuy@alcaco.net)



On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Christopher Doty wrote:

>> I agree with you here. The {-lu'} can hardly be called a passive.
>
> *sigh* This is why I said *functionally* a passive: to the extent that
> passives are about the demotion of an agent, Klingon has a passive,
> because we're kicking out the agent.

If I try to follow your use of the S/A/P terminology in these  
arguments about {-lu'}, I immediately encounter a blind spot.  How do  
you deal with "passivizing" a sentence like {bIr} that lacks an agent  
in the first place?  There's nothing to demote.  Does that mean you  
overlooked something in your analysis and it actually *isn't* a  
functional passive, or is there another explanation that lets you  
keep calling it one?

-- ghunchu'wI'






Back to archive top level