[86953] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Mon Nov 23 09:38:26 2009
In-Reply-To: <a1173fff0911222251tb3c0easb5c502b2ba896844@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:25:13 -0500
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dude. I am not getting paid to teach you linguistics.
Your linguistic knowledge is leading you astray in this case. You're
bringing in concepts from outside Klingon grammar, based on a use of
terms in TKD that are intended for people who don't already "know"
what they mean. This is a recipe for much confusion. Klingon and Zen
don't seem like a good match, but try to let go of the baggage you're
attaching to words like "subject" and "perfective". Just pretend they
don't have meaning outside what TKD describes, and I think you'll have
a much easier time with things.
[regarding {mapum Sor}]
> Because you decided that Sor was a subject (and a 1pl subject at that)
> a priori.
Actually, he decided that {Sor} was a subject because it followed the
verb. That's where subjects go in a Klingon sentence. He treated it as
first-person plural because the verb prefix says that's what the
subject is. There are no examples in the Klingon canon of such
sentences, but it is a defensible interpretation. True, it is not a
widely accepted interpretation, but it has a sound basis.
I hope that helps you understand where the reason for his decision
{wIvna'} differs significantly from your "decision" {wIvqoq}.
-- ghunchu'wI'
