tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 15:15:59 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: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:06:41 -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=OJeR9iE1nQRkJvRQ8ahjK1zliuctTaPNysePQU3/SkI=; b=okmJgjFUML270MynNpere9qbLmParKvOqKWDA4KBzM5gZoHpy6bLdB1K08icTo/ABy a46R5QA5UDioWesRklGYIsK9UBYfGatU0MhV6w5TqcSIpiogMXx6dVhW8lBF48Wmavk9 9ajTnO3W4g93G4Rh9vpJNDXe3/yGIjaA32biY=
- 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=Zl7H6k+kqlGb0R+9kOrWSpruWTSgEhH4MrOdRVoxFEMFzHV0NKTJOxcknU4aB9Ry4n QhniRHsWQ4CCyZu1PwWVH6MKCuTEXenzV/C937Ih9WY2RTXyRami3L8kGIGo8i+MFZlm TNS9iqWwbahgDNe1LDUFxeMx9GICXe5yGLDyc=
- 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]>
I will indeed rejoice!
I'd still like to see the canon for -lu', though.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 14:58, ghunchu'wI' <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Christopher Doty wrote:
>
>> ...I imagine
>> that the other linguists also on the list might not appreciate the
>> insinuation that linguists don't know what they are talking about...
>
> My observation is that many people with formal linguistic training
> don't know what they are talking about WHEN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
> KLINGON.
>
> Using terms of art when trying to describe how Klingon works is often
> misleading, especially when the person using them won't yield to the
> suggestion that they are being inappropriately applied. For example,
> the fact that you deny Tracy's demonstration that {-lu'} is not
> passive voice and continue to call it such doesn't mean you don't
> understand the concept of passive voice. It merely demonstrates that
> you fail to understand what {-lu'} is.
>
> {-lu'} is an indication that the subject is indefinite or unknown.
> That's *all* it is. It does not turn objects into subjects. It does
> not turn patients into agents. It does not turn an active verb into
> a passive one.
>
> I've had my say more times than I should have. Rejoice; I do not
> plan to respond in this thread further.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
>