[tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat

[SuStel]

On 2/23/2017 1:07 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
> No, my argument that *-lu'wI'* might function as -ee in employee stems 
> from the fact that if there's a *-lu'* on the verb, *-wI'* can't 
> nominalize it as the subject, since there isn't any, so the next 
> candidate is the object. 

Next candidate? Where does it say you can look for another candidate? 
Nothing in the explanation of *-wI'* says if there is no subject you can 
use the object instead.


> Let me state for the record that I do not assert that *-lu'wI'* is 
> good Klingon; I can't possibly know that. The safe bet is that it is 
> not. I merely find the arguments against it, while persuasive, are not 
> conclusive, and have presented my reasons for thinking this.

Good grief! Nobody ever said it was conclusive! We're talking about a 
language of a fictional people, invented by a fallible man who made 
errors, who is still adding to the official corpus. There's no such 
thing as "conclusive." You've got a construction that does not follow 
from the given rules, has never appeared in that corpus, and sure as 
heck resembles an English syntax which the construction can be 
translated into but whose syntax does not apply to the original. You can 
call that "wrong" without declaring conclusiveness!

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170223/6657fb63/attachment-0017.htm>