[87819] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Thu Feb 11 14:44:35 2010
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:41:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <6038b7231002111007h543f77b3w5fa68932e3a234c@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I've kind of always tended to think that Andre's idea wasn't totally impossible. How about another type of nominalization, with {-ghach}, eg. {leghlu'ghach} 'the act of being seen' (there's no exact English equivalent, but so what?). If {-ghach} means the performance of an action by an implied subject, then I think {-lu'ghach} can mean the experience of an action applied to an object, and if {-wI'} is the doer of an action, then {-lu'wI'} can be the experiencer of an action.
Okrand says that the true meaning of {-lu'} is that someone unspecified applies the action to the object, and that it only superficially resembles an English passive. I don't know why he uses verb prefixes as if the object were the subject, but neither {-wI'} or {-ghach} take verb prefixes, so the problem is moot.
-- ter'eS
--- On Thu, 2/11/10, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2010, 12:07 PM
> Okay, "correctness" clearly depends
> on the analysis here. Okrand's analysis
> differs from mine, but is valid too. I understand that
> Okrand's analyses are
> always preferred over what linguists might say (in a
> natural language this
> phenomenon wouldn't be all that easy to solve with just
> citing a sentence
> from the grammar).
> Unfortunately Okrand doesn't show us why he believes (I
> know, he created the
> language) that the subject prefix marks the object here,
> instead of the
> subject standing in the object position.
>
> - André
>
> 2010/2/11 David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
>
> > On 2/11/2010 8:42 AM, André Müller wrote:
> > > Thanks very much for your answer. You say a verb
> with {-lu'} has no
> > subject.
> > > This is partly true. See the following example:
> > > {wIleghlu'.} = Someone sees us. / We are seen.
> > > (1PL>3SG-see-PASS) [I'm just calling it a
> passive, because I can't come
> > up
> > > with a better term]
> > >
> > > The prefix indicates that a first person plural
> subject is involved. But
> > > when using an overt subject in such a sentence,
> it's used in object
> > > position:
> > >
> > > {naDev puqpu' [lu]tu'lu'.} = There are children
> around here. [the {lu-}
> > is
> > > optional]
> > > (here child-PL 3PL>3SG-find-PASS)
> >
> > Your analysis is incorrect. In {wIleghlu'}, "we" {maH}
> are the object,
> > not the subject. In English passive voice sentences
> the subject and
> > object move around, but there is no equivalent in
> Klingon. The verb
> > prefix {wI-} does not indicate a first-person plural
> subject when on a
> > verb with {-lu'}:
> >
> > Since the subject is always the same
> (that is, it is always
> > unstated), the pronomial prefixes
> (section 4.1.1) are used in a
> > different way. Those prefixes which
> normally indicate first- or
> > second-person subject and third-person
> singular object (vI-, Da-,
> > wI-, bo-) are used to indicate first- or
> second-person object.
> > (TKD 4.2.5)
> >
> > With no subject to a verb with {-lu'}, it's hard to
> see what the verb
> > would nominalize into. What is a "thing which does" if
> the verb says
> > there is no specific thing which does?
> >
> > --
> > SuStel
> > http://www.trimboli.name/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
