[109113] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Feb 28 11:56:53 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:56:20 -0500
In-Reply-To: <f19b6692-c65f-95bd-2783-92f82bf0d266@gmx.de>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============4065895864539153336==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------779D5CB9A31BB904547453A7"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------779D5CB9A31BB904547453A7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 2/28/2017 11:45 AM, Lieven wrote:
> Am 28.02.2017 um 16:26 schrieb SuStel:
>> None of them are used to describe an agentless action, lending credence
>> to the argument that the dearth of agentless *-lI'* shows that it isn't
>> allowed.
>
> Could you rephrase that, so that a non-native english speaking
> non-linguist can understand, please.
One of the three arguments made to support the idea that *-lI'* can only
be used when someone /intends/ the action to reach a goal is that of all
the canonical examples of *-lI',* none involve an action someone did not
choose a goal for. "If *-lI'* can be used for stopping points not
intended by anybody," goes the argument, "why don't we see any examples
of this in the canon?"
Voragh listed seven examples of *-lI'* from /paq'batlh,/ all of which
are about actions in which someone intends a specific outcome.
With an even greater number of examples of *-lI'* that do not show that
someone set up a goal intentionally, the "why haven't we seen any?"
argument grows stronger.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------779D5CB9A31BB904547453A7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/28/2017 11:45 AM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:f19b6692-c65f-95bd-2783-92f82bf0d266@gmx.de"
type="cite">Am 28.02.2017 um 16:26 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">None of them are
used to describe an agentless action, lending credence
<br>
to the argument that the dearth of agentless *-lI'* shows that
it isn't
<br>
allowed.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Could you rephrase that, so that a non-native english speaking
non-linguist can understand, please.
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>One of the three arguments made to support the idea that <b>-lI'</b>
can only be used when someone <i>intends</i> the action to reach
a goal is that of all the canonical examples of <b>-lI',</b> none
involve an action someone did not choose a goal for. "If <b>-lI'</b>
can be used for stopping points not intended by anybody," goes the
argument, "why don't we see any examples of this in the canon?"<br>
</p>
<p>Voragh listed seven examples of <b>-lI'</b> from <i>paq'batlh,</i>
all of which are about actions in which someone intends a specific
outcome.</p>
<p>With an even greater number of examples of <b>-lI'</b> that do
not show that someone set up a goal intentionally, the "why
haven't we seen any?" argument grows stronger.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------779D5CB9A31BB904547453A7--
--===============4065895864539153336==
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
--===============4065895864539153336==--
