[tlhIngan Hol] mughmeH laH vs mughlaHghach

[SuStel]

On 5/15/2018 4:28 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:01 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     On 5/15/2018 3:57 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>>     *mughlaHghach* seems to me to be ambiguously synonymous with both
>>     *mughmeH laH* and *mughlu'meH laH*. Without context, I'd expect
>>     these two phrases to mean respectively "ability to translate" and
>>     "ability to be translated."
>
>     *mughlu'meH laH* means /ability in order for someone indefinite to
>     translate,/ not /ability to be translated./
>
> My point was not whether passive voice was suitable for translating 
> this term, which I'd say it is in this case, but how the term would be 
> applied. *mughlu'meH laH* clearly does not apply to the translator. 
> Therefore, I would expect it to be used in talking about a text.

*mughlu'meH laH *clearly DOES apply to the translator. The only 
difference between *mughmeH laH* and *mughlu'meH laH* is that in the 
latter the subject doing the translating is explicitly indefinite. In 
the former there is NO subject. Purpose clauses are the only verbal 
clauses that allow you to ignore verb conjugation.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180515/b5c5fbe4/attachment-0016.htm>