[86955] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Mon Nov 23 09:47:31 2009
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:40:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <249d5b950911222121o7ef1aea3t6ec83fced7e25ea@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 11:21 PM
> 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.)
HIvqa' veqlargh.
-- ter'eS
>
