[3454] in tlhIngan-Hol
"Is this seat taken?"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Feb 24 17:42:57 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu@rsbbs.atl.ga.us (Shoulson@Ctr.Columbia.Edu)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 08:19:00 -0500
Reply-To: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu@rsbbs.atl.ga.us (Shoulson@Ctr.Columbia.Edu)
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: <shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:31:16 -0500
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 18:39:07 EST
>I would prefer that I simply agree with ~mark on this, but as yet, at
>the gut level, I feel like he just hasn't quite looked closely enough at
>this.
>> Subject: "Is this seat taken?"
>...[Guido writes:]
>> >> Anyways, how do the opinions go along the lines of
>> >> using {-lu'} with intransitive verbs like {ba'}. Does {ba'lu'} mean
>> >> "someone sits." Can we also say things like {Qonglu'}...
>...
>> [charghwI' writes:]
>> >I vote yes, initially. Then again, I see the problem...
>[~mark writes:]
>> I disagree here. I don't see a grammatical problem. And what's more,
>> Okrand himself left the door open for me not to see it. Says he, (TKD Sect
>> 4.2.5 pp. 38-39) "Those prefixes which normally indicate a first- or
>> second-person subject and third-person singular object ... are used to
>> indicate first- or second-person object." Nobody said anything about the
>> third-person prefix, so it need not necessarily be reversed to be "no
>> subject" somehow. "lu-" is mentioned separately as well...
>That's exactly my point. Look a little closer at the {lu-} example.
>That's a third person plural subject and third person singular object that
>becomes reversed to the indefinite singular third person subject and third
>person plural object. It is reversed, just like first and second person
>examples.
Aha, but note that it's mentioned *separately*, as though it's not part of
a general rule that *all* prefixes are "reversed".
>Furthermore, in the example of the use of the verb {tu'}, where NO
>prefix is used, implying singular third person subject and either singular or
>plural third person object (all combinations not covered by {lu-}), Okrand
>STILL reverses the subject and object by translating it as "someone/something
>finds IT." That is not anywhere like saying "someone/something finds." The
>implied third person singular subject becomes the third person singular
>object.
Hee. *This* null prefix is the 3rd-person singular subject, 3rd-person
sing/pl object prefix that's being reversed. The one on "Qonglu'" is the
3rd-person sing/pl subject no object prefix. They may *look* the same, but
technically they're different, and we thust have a leg to stand on that the
latter one is not reversed.
Is this sophistry? Maybe; Okrand likely wasn't thinking of such a close
reading of his text when he wrote this, but then again, we've done this to
his texts before. I'm trying to reconcile a canonical sentence with what's
written in TKD... and it works for me. Remember; we *DO* have a canonical
example supporting this.
~mark
---
----
--------------------
Standard DISCLAIMER
Applied.
--------------------
