[86938] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Lytle)
Mon Nov 23 00:22:35 2009
In-Reply-To: <387458.54269.qm@web82602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:21:05 -0500
From: Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Terrence Donnelly <
terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 11/22/09, Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I disagree on both counts.
> > "Sor" can be plural, so it can mean 'trees'.
> > The subject of "mapum" is 'we'. Thus in "mapum Sor" the
> > subject "Sor" is
> > also the subject "we", hence "we trees". While this is
> > controversial, it's
> > not necessarily ungrammatical. It* is* definitely not
> > canonical.
> > Transitive verbs can take the no-object prefixes. So even
> > though transitive
> > "pum" means 'accuse', it can still have no object mentioned
> > and form verbs
> > like "mapum", "jIpum", etc.
> > It's the intransitive verb "pum" that can't take (as far as
> > we know)
> > lay'tel SIvten
>
> According to the law of {rom}, {mapum Sor} is illegal not because the verb
> is plural and the subject possibly singular, but because they don't agree in
> person: {ma-} being second person and {Sor} third. I think this makes the
> example not controversial, but wrong..
>
> -- ter'eS
>
>
>
>
What evidence is there that "Sor" is third person? (And "ma-" is 1st person,
not second, but you know that.)
lay'tel SIvten
