[111404] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] DSC Klingon Trailer transcription (NOT offlist)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 6 03:11:08 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:45:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <E2E4DEBB-004E-4E7E-BEF8-ED5317F87681@alcaco.net>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============6981119421628953741==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------C4CBBC79D45849F0BA82B51A"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------C4CBBC79D45849F0BA82B51A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/4/2017 6:17 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 3:32 PM, SuStel<sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>> If they're allowed at all, there HAVE to be special circumstances, some special explanation that makes them stand apart from the first- and second-person prefixes, and you have no idea what that explanation might be.
> *I* have an idea what that explanation might be. It generalizes the prefix trick to explain things like {tuQmoH} and other uses of {-moH} on already transitive verbs. All it says is that when the prefix appears to violate the rule of {rom}, it could be pointing to the "indirect object" beneficiary instead of the (direct) object. Usually the beneficiary is implied by the prefix and the object is explicit, but I also consider cases where the normal object is missing and the grammatical beneficiary can be stated in its place
Yes, this is Lieven's explanation as well. That Okrand has never said.
Which means when he said "When the indirect object... is first or second
person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second
person object may be used," he really meant "When the indirect object...
is a pronoun, the pronominal prefix may agree with that pronoun instead
of the direct object." There is no distinction whatsoever between
person. All pronouns may be prefix tricked. So why did he specify first
and second person pronouns? Twice? Why were all his examples in that
message only first and second person? And with different numbers? The
original question only asked for second person.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------C4CBBC79D45849F0BA82B51A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/4/2017 6:17 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E2E4DEBB-004E-4E7E-BEF8-ED5317F87681@alcaco.net">
<pre wrap="">On Oct 4, 2017, at 3:32 PM, SuStel <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" moz-do-not-send="true"><sustel@trimboli.name></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">If they're allowed at all, there HAVE to be special circumstances, some special explanation that makes them stand apart from the first- and second-person prefixes, and you have no idea what that explanation might be.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>I<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> have an idea what that explanation might be. It generalizes the prefix trick to explain things like {tuQmoH} and other uses of {-moH} on already transitive verbs. All it says is that when the prefix appears to violate the rule of {rom}, it could be pointing to the "indirect object" beneficiary instead of the (direct) object. Usually the beneficiary is implied by the prefix and the object is explicit, but I also consider cases where the normal object is missing and the grammatical beneficiary can be stated in its place</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, this is Lieven's explanation as well. That Okrand has never
said. Which means when he said "When the indirect object... is
first or second
person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or
second
person object may be used," he really meant "When the indirect
object... is a pronoun, the pronominal prefix may agree with that
pronoun instead of the direct object." There is no distinction
whatsoever between person. All pronouns may be prefix tricked. So
why did he specify first and second person pronouns? Twice? Why
were all his examples in that message only first and second
person? And with different numbers? The original question only
asked for second person.<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>
--------------C4CBBC79D45849F0BA82B51A--
--===============6981119421628953741==
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
--===============6981119421628953741==--
