[109029] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lu'wI' (was: Rendered fat)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rhona Fenwick)
Sat Feb 18 14:04:34 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:09:14 +0000
In-Reply-To: <15152170.8636.1487416308203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============8122573062241209154==
Content-Language: en-AU
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_ME1PR01MB14744BEA54C29D2094B4EE3FAA5C0ME1PR01MB1474ausp_"
--_000_ME1PR01MB14744BEA54C29D2094B4EE3FAA5C0ME1PR01MB1474ausp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-4"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' Anthony, jatlh:
> Computer-analyzing the 4 verb forms
> translating "wIlegh wIleghlu' nulegh nuleghlu'":-
Relying on the raw output of a computer analysis is problematic at best. We=
already know that *{nuleghlu'} is (probably) not possible following TKD p.=
38-39, which states explicitly that the pronominal prefixes used with {-lu=
'} are {vI-}, {Da-}, {wI-}, and {bo-}. when a first- or second-person objec=
t is meant.
(poD poj)
taH:
> But TKD says as a special rule that (2) means "one sees us", "we are
> seen", and says nothing directly about (4).
Not quite. I think you would be well served to read TKD again on the topic.
taH:
> This reminds me of what happens in Celtic (where -r means "indefinite
> subject") compared to what happens in Latin (where "videmus" =3D "we
> see" and "videmur" means "we are seen".) In Latin, adding the "-r"
> makes the "-mus" change from specifying the one who sees to
> specifying the one who is seen, and that tense is called a passive, with
> "we" in subject position but meaning the one who is seen.
The difference is that the object of the Latin active verb is promoted to s=
ubject syntactically. Compare the following examples, where the active form=
has "boy" in the accusative case, and the passive has it in the nominative=
: /videt puerum/ "it sees the boy", but /puer vid=BAtur/ "the boy is seen".=
In Klingon, by contrast, the object remains the object syntactically. In {=
to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh} "stuffed tobbaj legs", if {-lu'} were a genuine p=
assive marker, we would expect *{lughoDlu'bogh to'baj 'uS} (since Klingon d=
oesn't mark subject and object by morphology, but by syntax). But that's no=
t what we see.
Also, I think you're a little confused on the Celtic "indefinite subject", =
which doesn't relate to the Klingon construction at all. The indefinite sub=
ject in Celtic is entirely different, and is rather a means of marking nomi=
nal definiteness on the verb. It doesn't restrict the ability of a verb to =
*take* a syntactic subject (compare Welsh /mae ci mawr yn yr ardd/ "a big d=
og is in the garden", but /mae'r ci mawr yn yr ardd/ "the big dog is in the=
garden" - both would be equally rendered as {Du'HomDaq 'oHtaH Ha'DIbaH tIn=
'e'} in Klingon).
taH:
> This looks like that wIleghlu' is partly describable as a passive, making
> leghlu'wI' possible for "one who is seen".
You've still got a logical leap to address between "partly describable as a=
passive" and "exactly describable as a passive". Yes, the {-lu'} construct=
ion in Klingon shares with the English passive a reduction in focus on the =
subject. But plenty of other constructions are capable of reducing focus on=
the subject. The two don't behave the same syntactically and so you can't =
reduce {-lu'} to a true passive.
I agree completely with SuStel. As they've been described to us in canon up=
to now, I don't believe {-lu'} and {-wI'} combine in a way that makes any =
grammatical sense.
QeS 'utlh
--_000_ME1PR01MB14744BEA54C29D2094B4EE3FAA5C0ME1PR01MB1474ausp_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-4"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
4">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margi=
n-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font=
-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir=3D"ltr">
<p>ghItlhpu' Anthony, jatlh:<br>
</p>
<p>> Computer-analyzing the 4 verb forms<br>
</p>
<div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div>> translating "wIlegh wIleghlu' nulegh=
nuleghlu'":-<br>
<br>
Relying on the raw output of a computer analysis is problematic at best. We=
already know that *{nuleghlu'} is (probably) not possible following TKD p.=
38-39, which states explicitly that the pronominal prefixes used with {-lu=
'} are {vI-}, {Da-}, {wI-}, and
{bo-}. when a first- or second-person object is meant.<br>
<br>
(poD poj)<br>
<br>
taH:<br>
> But TKD says as a special rule that (2) means "one sees us",=
"we are<br>
> seen", and says nothing directly about (4).<br>
<br>
Not quite. I think you would be well served to read TKD again on the topic.=
<br>
<br>
taH:<br>
> This reminds me of what happens in Celtic (where -r means "indefi=
nite<br>
> subject") compared to what happens in Latin (where "videmus&=
quot; =3D "we<br>
> see" and "videmur" means "we are seen".) In L=
atin, adding the "-r"<br>
> makes the "-mus" change from specifying the one who sees to<=
br>
> specifying the one who is seen, and that tense is called a passive, wi=
th<br>
> "we" in subject position but meaning the one who is seen.<br=
>
<br>
The difference is that the object of the Latin active verb is promoted to s=
ubject syntactically. Compare the following examples, where the active form=
has "boy" in the accusative case, and the passive has it in the =
nominative: /videt puerum/ "it sees the boy",
but /puer vid=BAtur/ "the boy is seen". In Klingon, by contrast,=
the object remains the object syntactically. In {to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh}=
"stuffed tobbaj legs", if {-lu'} were a genuine passive marker, =
we would expect *{lughoDlu'bogh to'baj 'uS} (since Klingon
doesn't mark subject and object by morphology, but by syntax). But that's =
not what we see.<br>
<br>
Also, I think you're a little confused on the Celtic "indefinite subje=
ct", which doesn't relate to the Klingon construction at all. The inde=
finite subject in Celtic is entirely different, and is rather a means of ma=
rking nominal definiteness on the verb. It
doesn't restrict the ability of a verb to *take* a syntactic subject (comp=
are Welsh /mae ci mawr yn yr ardd/ "a big dog is in the garden", =
but /mae'r ci mawr yn yr ardd/ "the big dog is in the garden" - b=
oth would be equally rendered as {Du'HomDaq 'oHtaH Ha'DIbaH
tIn'e'} in Klingon).<br>
<br>
taH:<br>
> This looks like that wIleghlu' is partly describable as a passive, mak=
ing<br>
> leghlu'wI' possible for "one who is seen".<br>
<br>
You've still got a logical leap to address between "partly describable=
as a passive" and "exactly describable as a passive". Yes, =
the {-lu'} construction in Klingon shares with the English passive a reduct=
ion in focus on the subject. But plenty of other constructions
are capable of reducing focus on the subject. The two don't behave the sam=
e syntactically and so you can't reduce {-lu'} to a true passive.<br>
<br>
I agree completely with SuStel. As they've been described to us in canon up=
to now, I don't believe {-lu'} and {-wI'} combine in a way that makes=
any grammatical sense.<br>
<br>
QeS 'utlh<br>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_ME1PR01MB14744BEA54C29D2094B4EE3FAA5C0ME1PR01MB1474ausp_--
--===============8122573062241209154==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============8122573062241209154==--
