[87826] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Fri Feb 12 00:46:10 2010
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <6038b7231002111720l35b15528pe8be83422f6ae377@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:27:51 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Feb 11, 2010, at 8:20 PM, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If Okrand wouldn't have added
> the section you kindly cited some emails above, wouldn't it be
> possible that
> {-lu'} verbs just cause a weird change in word order? Do you see any
> evidence which would falsify this possible/theoretical analysis?
The verb suffix {-lu'} is defined as meaning "indefinite subject".
That seems like conclusive evidence that a noun preceding the verb
bearing {-lu'} is not the subject. The word order is standard. It is
merely the verb prefix that changes from its usual interpretation.
If you need a reason for *why* the prefix is weird, I think it's
because verb prefixes always carry the idea of a subject. Something
has to be done differently when no subject is to be implied. It could
have been done with the no-object prefixes instead of the third-person
singular object ones...or it could have been done in a number of other
ways. Whatever the reason for the specific prefixes used, I think it's
clear that the object remains the object if {-lu'} is present.
-- ghunchu'wI'
