tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 08:25:29 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-lu'} on intransitive verbs [WAS Re: The topic marker -'e']
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-lu'} on intransitive verbs [WAS Re: The topic marker -'e']
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:23:56 -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=sXluope3cih8QhAZMdNNhvhK31Bi7itbcJc94/zKGts=; b=Bsghbig+/24EjbSHTTDl4T73M00hP2oSVhhUNACC+tuaFCL/hoZogyFNkr9cQbs/Rm eUWG5v7BZu4Y3EiNNX8ycDa4Hbb75SVE7ekzl578YPgtwfxk5zCtteC7km+sevl8dwxZ 9KfNCBKWXXQFhCey/UitDR0vaTGl6Fj3jLHQw=
- 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=ImNoKNJ0QtZl7yhZwMjedoRTzKp2srxYzfK1EgIS76fpRmSBiJ+9n7QIMYbzqs3IIC NVtqtsE2+Hm+Mwu+V/nAkyFRwZdjdXV7m/HsZitWW17o/MhKO8kg+Jeh5MSJ6QK8TUOJ OaJmbCeInfnJ4l17w6BO4UdYespsWfX7UAaK4=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:10, ghunchu'wI' <[email protected]> wrote:
> When you say "also" and "beyond", do you mean 1) it's always a
> passive and sometimes has another function at the same time, or 2)
> it's sometimes a passive and sometimes has another function instead?
> I hesitate to respond before I know just what I'm responding to.
I mean exactly what I said: it functions as a passive, and it
functions in other ways, too.
>> This first set looks closest to a sort of fourth person, especially
>> the first one.
>
>
> If by "fourth person" you mean an indefinite or nonspecific or even
> completely absent subject...then yes, that's exactly what {-lu'}
> means. It *always* means that. Whether or not an appropriate
> English translation uses passive voice isn't important. (I think the
> phrase "zeroth person" would fit the idea better.)
Oh you of hating terminology, did you make up a terrible, terrible word?
>> Specific comments below...
>
> I can't be sure what you're really thinking, but it looks like your
> specific comments are all based on the English phrasing. Try not to
> put too much importance on the translation; in many of these cases,
> the English came first and the Klingon was crafted to carry a similar
> meaning. For instance:
You can't be sure what I'm thinking because I have 10+ years of
studying linguistics under my belt, and I can hardly impart all of
that knowledge to you in a couple weeks over email.
> I can see no way to call {Suvlu'taHvIS} transitive.
Are you serious? It would be hard to not fight something or someone.
You'll note that I said "semantically" transitive, which 'fight' is.