[112272] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] when -laH cripples the -lu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Tue Mar 19 05:36:36 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJP3F0V-rEQuH=1ucRrw+Z-U1VSLkr4r=7YA6Pw4ahNnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:36:23 +0100
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============6893043032206218032==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8540405846f3d47"
--000000000000a8540405846f3d47
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:18, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
> De'vID:
> > Why wouldn't you just use {vay'}, and then subsequently
> > use {ghaH} to refer back to that person?
>
> I'm afraid you misunderstood me.
>
> I don't have a problem with using vay' and then ghaH, as you suggested. It
> is what I would naturally do, in order to avoid hitting the -lu'/-laH
> problem.
>
There's your problem, though. You'd only do this to "avoid hitting" the
{-lu'}/{-laH} "problem". But why wouldn't you be doing this to begin with,
*regardless* of whether {-lu'}/{-laH} were the same suffix type or not?
Imagine if Klingon didn't lump {-lu'} and {-laH} into the same suffix class
and you could use them together. What would change?
> The point of this thread, was to share my disappointment; on one hand we
> have a suffix, which we could use in order to refer to someone indefinite,
> but on the other hand, the -lu'/-laH rule, undermines our ability to use
> -lu' to its fullest, thus limiting its use to expressing passive voice.
>
I don't think it does, though. You've claimed repeatedly this is a problem,
but you've not really demonstrated this by writing a passage in Klingon
which runs into this problem. So let's pretend that {-lu'laH} is
permissible. What is the passage you would've written?
--
De'vID
--000000000000a8540405846f3d47
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:18, mayqel =
qunen'oS <<a href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>=
> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div=
dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-=
size:12.8px">De'vID:</span></div><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;=
font-size:12.8px">> Why wouldn't you just use {vay'}, and then s=
ubsequently=C2=A0</span><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-s=
erif;font-size:12.8px">> use {ghaH} to refer back to that person?</span>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.=
8px"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span sty=
le=3D"font-size:12.8px">I'm afraid you misunderstood me.</span></font><=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px"><br></span></font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif">=
<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I don't have a problem with using vay&=
#39; and then ghaH, as you suggested. It is what I would naturally do, in o=
rder to avoid hitting the -lu'/-laH problem.</span></font></div></div><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>There's your problem, though. You'd=
only do this to "avoid hitting" the {-lu'}/{-laH} "prob=
lem". But why wouldn't you be doing this to begin with, *regardles=
s* of whether {-lu'}/{-laH} were the same suffix type or not? Imagine i=
f Klingon didn't lump {-lu'} and {-laH} into the same suffix class =
and you could use them together. What would change?=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0<=
/div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><d=
iv dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">=
</span></font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=
=3D"font-size:12.8px">The point of this thread, was to share my disappointm=
ent; on one hand we have a suffix, which we could use in order to refer to =
someone indefinite, but on the other hand, the -lu'/-laH rule, undermin=
es our ability to use -lu' to its fullest, thus limiting its use to exp=
ressing passive voice.</span></font></div></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0<br=
></div></div>I don't think it does, though. You've claimed repeated=
ly this is a problem, but you've not really demonstrated this by writin=
g a passage in Klingon which runs into this problem. So let's pretend t=
hat {-lu'laH} is permissible. What is the passage you would've writ=
ten?<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail=
_signature">De'vID</div></div>
--000000000000a8540405846f3d47--
--===============6893043032206218032==
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
--===============6893043032206218032==--
