[109104] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ed Bailey)
Tue Feb 28 00:39:31 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmO662JnJP0iosm9_jNy2SdDaJ87UkyE7bpFG99X8w5N=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:39:27 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============4019544221466812439==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c188318955f510549909e31
--94eb2c188318955f510549909e31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:15 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 February 2017 at 07:07, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > No, my argument that -lu'wI' might function as -ee in employee stems from
> > the fact that if there's a -lu' on the verb, -wI' can't nominalize it as
> the
> > subject, since there isn't any, so the next candidate is the object.
>
> Why doesn't it turn the verb into its indefinite subject?
>
> For example:
> {Daqawlu'} "you are remembered"
>
> *{Daqawlu'wI'} - if I understand your claim, you would claim this
> means "you who are remembered" (i.e., the "rememberee"), but why
> doesn't this mean "whoever or whatever remembers you" (the
> "rememberer")?
>
> (I don't think you can stick a prefix like {Da-} and the suffix {-wI'}
> on the same verb, but while you're sticking {-lu'} and {-wI'}
> together, why not?)
>
> --
> De'vID
>
The alternative you suggest for argument's sake, of turning a verb into its
indefinite subject, is pretty weird. Weird, because why would there be a
nominalized verb that stands for a subject that has been obviated by a
suffix on the verb? Also, the obviation of the noun happens in situations
ranging from that of a known agent whose identity isn't relevant to the
sentence to that of an action for which no agent can be identified. But
weirdness hardly argues against its use in an alien language, does it? And
it doesn't violate TKD 3.2.2, either. So it's clearly a contender as an
answer to the question, "What does *-lu'wI'* mean, if anything?"
A prefix on a nominalized verb also seems weird, and there's no rule
against it, either, only (as far as I know) MO's "initial reaction" that it
"needs more study," at least in the context of *-ghach*. Has he said any
more on this?
As for claims, I don't claim the interpretation that *-lu'wI'* nominalizes
as the object is anything more than conjecture. I explained why it appeals
to me, including the usefulness of a single noun in place of the phrase *vay'
___lu'bogh* and the uniqueness of verbs with *-lu'* due to the special
prefix rule. What I do claim is that it might possibly be valid given more
explanation from MO, since TKD 3.2.2 might be worded as it is simply
because he hadn't considered the case of a verb with both *-lu'* and *-wI'*
and hadn't decided the matter by the time of the second edition.
Nominalizing as the object obviously violates the wording he uses, but did
he word it as he did in order to imply that this is not permitted? What it
comes down to is what his thoughts are. So I very much want to hear what he
has to say about *-lu'wI'*, and anyone else's reasoning, particularly my
own, is no substitute.
~mIp'av
--94eb2c188318955f510549909e31
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:15 AM, De'vID <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a=
>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0p=
x 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><s=
pan>On 23 February 2017 at 07:07, Ed Bailey <<a href=3D"mailto:belleroph=
on.modeler@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com</a><w=
br>> wrote:<br>
> No, my argument that -lu'wI' might function as -ee in employee=
stems from<br>
> the fact that if there's a -lu' on the verb, -wI' can'=
t nominalize it as the<br>
> subject, since there isn't any, so the next candidate is the objec=
t.<br>
<br>
</span>Why doesn't it turn the verb into its indefinite subject?<br>
<br>
For example:<br>
{Daqawlu'} "you are remembered"<br>
<br>
*{Daqawlu'wI'} - if I understand your claim, you would claim this<b=
r>
means "you who are remembered" (i.e., the "rememberee")=
, but why<br>
doesn't this mean "whoever or whatever remembers you" (the<br=
>
"rememberer")?<br>
<br>
(I don't think you can stick a prefix like {Da-} and the suffix {-wI=
9;}<br>
on the same verb, but while you're sticking {-lu'} and {-wI'}<b=
r>
together, why not?)<br>
<div class=3D"gmail-m_2920884683624469973m_7469415562957976038gmail-m_19988=
87778198983779HOEnZb"><div class=3D"gmail-m_2920884683624469973m_7469415562=
957976038gmail-m_1998887778198983779h5"><br>
--<br>
De'vID<br></div></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><div>The alternativ=
e you suggest for argument's sake, of turning a verb into=20
its indefinite subject, is pretty weird. Weird, because why would there be =
a nominalized verb that stands for a subject that has been obviated by a su=
ffix on the verb? Also, the obviation of the noun happens in situations ran=
ging from that of a known agent whose identity isn't relevant to the se=
ntence to that of an action for which no agent can be identified. But weird=
ness hardly argues against its use in an alien language,
does it? And it doesn't violate TKD 3.2.2, either. So it's clearly=
a contender as an answer to the question, "What does <b>-lu'wI=
9;</b> mean, if anything?"<br><br> A prefix on a nominalized
verb also seems weird, and there's no rule against it, either, only (a=
s far as I know) MO's=20
"initial reaction" that it "needs more study," at least=
in the context of <b>-ghach</b>. Has he said any more on=20
this?<br><br></div><div>As for claims, I don't claim the interpretation=
that <b>-lu'wI'</b> nominalizes as the object is anything more tha=
n conjecture. I explained why it appeals to me, including the usefulness of=
a single noun in place of the phrase <b>vay' ___lu'bogh</b> and th=
e uniqueness of verbs with <b>-lu'</b> due to the special prefix rule. =
What I do claim is that it might possibly be valid given more explanation f=
rom MO, since TKD 3.2.2 might be worded as it is simply because he hadn'=
;t considered the case of a verb with both <b>-lu'</b> and <b>-wI'<=
/b> and hadn't decided the matter by the time of the second edition. No=
minalizing as the object obviously violates the wording he uses, but did he=
word it as he did in order to imply that this is not permitted? What it co=
mes down to is what his thoughts are. So I very much want to hear what he h=
as to say about <b>-lu'wI'</b>, and anyone else's reasoning, pa=
rticularly my own, is no substitute.<br><br></div><div>~mIp'av<br></div=
></div></div></div>
--94eb2c188318955f510549909e31--
--===============4019544221466812439==
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
--===============4019544221466812439==--
