[87179] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Wed Nov 25 20:31:45 2009
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:30:06 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <a1173fff0911251637v3d2c9acfl1ffbb771b3efc3fb@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Christopher Doty wrote:
> Okay, let me try to clarify a bit what I was saying, since I clearly
> wasn't explicit enough. I often forget how much knowledge a lay
> person has about linguistics and terminology, and I didn't give enough
> background. This is pretty long, and not much about Klingon, but I
> need to outline what I meant a bit more clearly for those who care (if
> only to find some typo or mistake I've made and then respond only to
> that :).
It's interesting stuff, but I for one will have to take your word for
it, for it goes beyond my knowledge at this time. But I certainly don't
begrudge any conversation about it!
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 15:59, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>> This is also not antipassive voice. In antipassive voice, the object
>> vanishes or gets demoted; this does not happen here.
>
> I never said anything about this being an antipassive; the antipassive
> I was referring to is the use of intransitive prefixes with otherwise
> transitive verbs. This has nothing to do with antipassives.
I didn't mean to suggest you had said that. Someone had mentioned the
antipassive earlier, so I thought I'd add that to the list of "this is
not that."
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
