[tlhIngan Hol] placing {-lu'} on {'oH} and {ghaH}

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Mon Jul 8 00:35:31 PDT 2019

On 7/8/2019 1:54 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
> Am 07.07.2019 um 19:35 schrieb SuStel:
>>> We know that -lu' reverse the object-subject,
>> to unlearn this falsehood immediately.
> [...]
>> The object always remains the object. The only thing that changes is the
>> prefix used.
> In your example you have replaced the prefix with the -lu-suffix. In
> that case, the object remains the same, of course.
> What I man was:
> vIlegh - I see him
> vIleghlu' - he sees me

In this case you are talking about two completely different semantic 
meanings. One would never replace *vIlegh* with *vIleghlu'* in a 
sentence to make the subject indefinite, which is the point of *-lu'.*

Instead, what you've done is switched the subject and object yourself, 
and then claimed that adding a *-lu'* did it. Adding a *-lu' *simply 
erases the subject and triggers the special-case prefixes.

Besides, *vIleghlu'* doesn't mean /he sees me,/ it means someone 
indefinite sees me. The /he/ of the first sentence isn't identified as 
the one who does it.

> So, meaning reversed if {-lu'} is added. That's what TKD says:
> Those prefixes which normally indicate
> first- or second-person /subject/ [...] are used to indicate
> first- or second-person /object/.

Yes, the prefixes are used "in a different way." This is not "reversed," 
and TKD doesn't say "reversed." There is no reversing going on. When 
you're using *-lu',* you use a different set of prefixes than usual, a 
set that indicates "no subject" and first-, second-, or third-person 
singular or plural object. You look at your object and pick the correct 
prefix. There is no subject/object switching going on.

> And I said that I do. Each time anyone writes a theoretical possibility
> about the grammar, you get upset and tell us not to do that.

No I don't. I evaluate the logic of the argument and the evidence given 
for it. If I find it unsupported, I say so. If I can see evidence for 
it, I'll give my opinion of that evidence and whether I think it 
supports the proposed possibility. If I find overwhelming evidence for 
it, I'll endorse the possibility.

Like this time. mayqel asked about putting *-lu'* on pronouns and I said 
I can find no reason why it couldn't be done in certain cases. There is 
no direct evidence that it CAN be done, so I'm not endorsing it, but as 
far as following the rules and making semantic sense, I can find no 
issue with it.

> But if you
> set up a theory, you don't accept any contradiction.

If I propose something that I think makes sense but isn't overwhelmingly 
supported, I certainly do accept contradiction. When someone points out 
an unambiguous bit of canon, for instance, that contradicts what I said, 
then that's that.

> Let's just wait for Maltz' answer. There's no reason to keep discussing
> about such things if we don't know if it's right or not.

Oh, has Maltz been asked for an arbitration? Is that a thing now? See, I 
don't get to ask Okrand for answers to our little spats here, so all I 
have to go on is the evidence.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190708/2c2e4065/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list