tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 15:15:59 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: The topic marker -'e'

Christopher Doty (suomichris@gmail.com)



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' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> 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'
>
>
>
>






Back to archive top level