[87162] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Wed Nov 25 17:59:24 2009
In-Reply-To: <a1173fff0911251112w20a4d055ve686e2629913136b@mail.gmail.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:58:23 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Nov 25, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Christopher Doty wrote:
> ...I imagine
> that the other linguists also on the list might not appreciate the
> insinuation that linguists don't know what they are talking about...
My observation is that many people with formal linguistic training
don't know what they are talking about WHEN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
KLINGON.
Using terms of art when trying to describe how Klingon works is often
misleading, especially when the person using them won't yield to the
suggestion that they are being inappropriately applied. For example,
the fact that you deny Tracy's demonstration that {-lu'} is not
passive voice and continue to call it such doesn't mean you don't
understand the concept of passive voice. It merely demonstrates that
you fail to understand what {-lu'} is.
{-lu'} is an indication that the subject is indefinite or unknown.
That's *all* it is. It does not turn objects into subjects. It does
not turn patients into agents. It does not turn an active verb into
a passive one.
I've had my say more times than I should have. Rejoice; I do not
plan to respond in this thread further.
-- ghunchu'wI'
