[109027] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Holt)
Sat Feb 18 13:54:40 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:15:54 +0000
In-Reply-To: <df468857-d8c3-64e2-002d-1431f93a3929@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
ghItlh SapIr:
I suspect that part of the problem is that, for native speakers of=A0
English and most other European languages, the most natural place for the
subject is before the verb. Thus, when we see *Soj vutlu'*, our
instincts tell us that *Soj* is the subject, rather than an object in a
sentence that doens't have an overt subject.
ghItlh Jeremy (jIH):
I can't speak for others who have asked this question, but placement of the
object had nothing to do with my question. =A0I based my question solely fr=
om
the perspective that the pronominal prefixes which normally indicate first-
or second-person subject are used with {-lu'}. =A0My hope was that followin=
g that
model, we could also allow {-wI'} to see the assumed object as the subject.
There is a form of "promotion" of object to subject, though admittedly
incomplete, especially since the explicit object placement does not change.
I admit that I couldn't recall the results of previous discussions and so t=
hrew it
in as an additional possability to be discussed for my purposes. =A0I was n=
ot
proposing it as my best suggestion and knew there was a good chance others
would shoot it down. =A0I accept their objections. =
ghItlh SuStel:
The exact sentence TKD uses to explain the indefinite subject prefixes is t=
his:
"Those prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person subject and
third-person singular object (vI-, Da-, wI-, bo-) are used to indicate firs=
t- or
second-person object." TKD is telling us that the object of a verb with -l=
u'
remains an object with -lu' there. The prefixes are being reassigned; they =
no
longer have their old roles when -lu' is used. There is no promotion of obj=
ect
to subject.
DaH:
Works for me. Just to be clear, I was not trying to defend my use of {-wI'=
} with {-lu'}. I was trying to defend the accusation that I had assumed th=
e object could act like the subject because I'm used to the subject being b=
efore the verb. Your points are valid and I have not argued against any of=
them. In another situation I'm pretty sure I would have decried the use o=
f {-wI'} with {-lu'}. But I really wanted to be wrong so I could streamlin=
e my translation just a tiny bit (because space and brevity is an issue in =
this project) and so suggested it to see what the consensus was. My intent=
was not to open an old wound, but just to be reminded what the scar looked=
like. Thank you for your input on {-wI'} with {-lu'}. I see that while p=
osting this you have posted another reply, so I'll go see if you have addre=
ssed there the question of whether the thing being rendered is the subject =
or object of {'Im}?
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
