[87244] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: {-lu'} on intransitive verbs [WAS Re: The topic marker -'e']
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Fri Nov 27 11:25:48 2009
In-Reply-To: <8916E204-A866-4B86-AAF2-109EAA44A460@alcaco.net>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:23:56 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:10, ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> When you say "also" and "beyond", do you mean 1) it's always a
> passive and sometimes has another function at the same time, or 2)
> it's sometimes a passive and sometimes has another function instead?
> I hesitate to respond before I know just what I'm responding to.
I mean exactly what I said: it functions as a passive, and it
functions in other ways, too.
>> This first set looks closest to a sort of fourth person, especially
>> the first one.
>
>
> If by "fourth person" you mean an indefinite or nonspecific or even
> completely absent subject...then yes, that's exactly what {-lu'}
> means. It *always* means that. Whether or not an appropriate
> English translation uses passive voice isn't important. (I think the
> phrase "zeroth person" would fit the idea better.)
Oh you of hating terminology, did you make up a terrible, terrible word?
>> Specific comments below...
>
> I can't be sure what you're really thinking, but it looks like your
> specific comments are all based on the English phrasing. Try not to
> put too much importance on the translation; in many of these cases,
> the English came first and the Klingon was crafted to carry a similar
> meaning. For instance:
You can't be sure what I'm thinking because I have 10+ years of
studying linguistics under my belt, and I can hardly impart all of
that knowledge to you in a couple weeks over email.
> I can see no way to call {Suvlu'taHvIS} transitive.
Are you serious? It would be hard to not fight something or someone.
You'll note that I said "semantically" transitive, which 'fight' is.
