[109044] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lu'wI' (was: Rendered fat)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rhona Fenwick)
Sun Feb 19 03:38:38 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: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:38:24 +0000
In-Reply-To: <14771294.18132.1487425215799.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0641964954151864216==
Content-Language: en-AU
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_ME1PR01MB1474AA69EF2925B2C81406DFAA5F0ME1PR01MB1474ausp_"
--_000_ME1PR01MB1474AA69EF2925B2C81406DFAA5F0ME1PR01MB1474ausp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jIghItlhpu' jIH, jIjatlhpu':
> Also, I think you're a little confused on the Celtic "indefinite subject"=
, which
> doesn't relate to the Klingon construction at all.
mujangpu' Anthony, jatlh:
> Sorry; by the impersonal / indefinite "r" I did not mean the Welsh for "t=
he"
> (y, yr, 'r)
Ah, my mistake. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
Still, the Irish impersonal construction doesn't help matters because it's =
not a passive either. In the impersonal in Irish, we still see that the obj=
ect is not promoted to subject position. In the impersonal /cailleadh iad/ =
"someone lost them; they died", for instance, it's the disjunctive, object =
form of the pronoun that's used - /iad/ - rather than the conjunctive, subj=
ect form /siad/ that would be expected if this were a genuine passive const=
ruction. It's a change in morphosyntactic orientation that makes a distinct=
ion one of voice, not simply one of morphology.
QeS 'utlh
--_000_ME1PR01MB1474AA69EF2925B2C81406DFAA5F0ME1PR01MB1474ausp_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<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>jIghItlhpu' jIH, jIjatlhpu':</p>
<p>> <span>Also, I think you're a little confused on the Celtic "in=
definite subject", which</span></p>
<p><span>> doesn't relate to the Klingon construction at all.</span><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>mujangpu' Anthony, jatlh:<br>
</p>
<p>> Sorry; by the impersonal / indefinite "r" I did not mean =
the Welsh for "the"</p>
<p>> (y, yr, 'r)</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Ah, my mistake. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Still, the Irish impersonal construction doesn't help matters because it=
's not a passive either. In the impersonal in Irish, we still see that the =
object is not promoted to subject position. In the impersonal /cailleadh ia=
d/ "someone lost them; they died",
for instance, it's the disjunctive, object form of the pronoun that's used=
- /iad/ - rather than the conjunctive, subject form /siad/ that would be e=
xpected if this were a genuine passive construction. It's a change in morph=
osyntactic orientation that makes
a distinction one of voice, not simply one of morphology.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>QeS 'utlh<br>
</p>
<div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_ME1PR01MB1474AA69EF2925B2C81406DFAA5F0ME1PR01MB1474ausp_--
--===============0641964954151864216==
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
--===============0641964954151864216==--
