[87828] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: suffixes -lu'wI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Fri Feb 12 09:33:57 2010
From: "David Trimboli" <david@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:30:51 -0700
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> From: André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com>
> It seems that the main problem here is caused by our different analyses: you
> are judging from the lables and Okrand's descriptions, I am judging from
> what kind of sentences the language provides. Both is perfectly valid. So
> either you go with Okrand and say that {-lu'} marks that the subject as
> indefinite, plus, it causes that the prefixes to switch their indicated
> roles (subject to object and vice versa). Then {-wI'} is clearly impossible.
> Or you go for the alternative analysis: {-lu'} marks the subject as
> indefinite, then works like a normal passive (turning the object into the
> subject) which however allows the (indefinite) agent be marked as the direct
> object. Then it causes a switch in word order moving the subject to object
> position in the phrase. Then {-wI'} would be possible.
If you're trying to analyze the language without paying attention to
Okrand's explanations, how do you come to the conclusion that {-lu'}
creates a passive form—except by making the assumption that a possible
passive English translation requires a passive Klingon sentence?
> Both theories work. I now see that my theory is slightly more complex,
As far as I can tell, your theory requires the introduction of new rules
that are not explained or evidenced anywhere.
In any case, that {-lu'} indicates an indefinite subject is not a
theory; it is an axiom. Okrand tells us so. You can't ignore that.
> It's very untypical for a language to switch
> around the roles in portmanteau prefixes as such, but it's quite usual to
> switch one's word order around in some sentence-types. I know that judgement
> comes from terran languages and might not apply at all to Klingon.
Klingon does a lot of things that real-world natural languages do not
do. It does these things on purpose.
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
