[87165] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Wed Nov 25 18:16:48 2009
In-Reply-To: <219B7A85-63B9-4CD4-9A08-E083239B9F20@alcaco.net>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:06:41 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I will indeed rejoice!
I'd still like to see the canon for -lu', though.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 14:58, ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> 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'
>
>
>
>
