<div dir="ltr"><div>Qu'wIjmo' jIyevnISpu' 'ej Do'Ha' qaSpu' jaj bID je jItaHqa'laHpa'. nI' QInmeymaj vaj loQ vImISchoH. jItaghqa'meH Daq vItu'.<br><br><br></div>jIjatlh:<br><div><span class="gmail-im"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="margin-left:40px">jagh QaHbe'nISlu' 'a vuDDaj meq qaq buSHa'law' SuStel.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
jatlh SuStel:<br>
</span></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><p>nuqjatlh? <i>SuStel seems to ignore his preferable opinion.</i></p></div><p>I should have said something like <span class="gmail-im">vuDDaj vuybogh meq qaq'e' buSHa'law' SuStel.</span></p><p><span class="gmail-im">And of course the preferable reason: </span>wot tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je ngaSbogh mu'tlhegh naDpu''a' marq 'oqranD?</p><p>In my opinion, the lack of canon -lu' plus -wI' is a stronger argument than your inference from the rules of TKD. MO can always refine the rules outlined in his "grammatical sketch," and he could easily say the wording in TKD 3.2.2 fails to take into account one special case, but if he were to start allowing -lu' plus -wI' at this point, some explanation for its apparent rarity is called for.<br></p><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:35 AM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-">
<div class="gmail-m_-6734971746915563136moz-cite-prefix">On 2/20/2017 11:03 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> naQjej rurmo' wot, ghantoH <chuH>
vIlo'. vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej ?chuHlu'wI'
'e' SIbI' vItlhoj.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
<p><b>vay'e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej *chuHlu'wI' SIbI' 'e'
vItlhoj</b></p>
<p>or</p>
<p><b>SIbI' vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oHSbej *chuHlu'wI' 'e'
vItlhoj</b></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><'e'> tlha'laH chuvmey 'e' vIQub. 'a jIQochbe',
<'e'> nung chuvmey vImaS je.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span><p><b>'e'</b> lutlha'laHbe' chuv. chaq <i>TKD</i> 6.7 mojaq <i>-'e'</i>
je DaqelHa'.<br></p></div></blockquote><div>bIlughlaw'. vogh chuvmey nunglaH <'e'> vIlaDpu' qen 'e' vIQub, 'a DaH Daq'e' vIqawlaHbe'. 'a ghIH mIwvam. DoS DIp qa'meH, reH DoS DIp DaqDaq <'e'> lanlu'<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>
</p><span class="gmail-">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">In English passive
voice, this is true. <b>-lu'</b> is not English passive
voice. In Klingon, when <b>-lu'</b> is added, the object
remains the object.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is the language used to decribe what goes on in
Klingon. My point is the construction i <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span><p>Your sentence seems to have been cut off.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oops! I think I was saying the language used in TKD attempts to describe Klingon grammar in terms familiar to the reader, but that Klingons do not necessarily conceive of their grammar in those terms. Therefore there is a danger of accepting TKD's explanations too literally, and based on that, forcing an interpretation of Klingon grammar that Klingons would rightly consider alien. We know the grammatical forms (at least some of them) and the semantic relations (for instance, we know the different semantic roles of the arguments of a verb, one of these being that a noun following a verb is always an agent). But the familiar grammatical terms in TKD, to paraphrase Spock in "Errand of Mercy," could well be conventionalizations. Useless to the Klingons<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">. Used by MO so that language students, such as ourselves, could have conventional
points of reference.</font><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>The language used to describe what goes on in Klingon is
"someone/something does something to me" and "someone/something
does something to them," and so on. Only after giving examples in
most combinations does TKD say "Verbs with <b>-lu'</b> are often
translated into the English passive voice." It then gives the SAME
examples translated into passive voice. The point is clearly not
that what's happening in Klingon is grammatically equivalent to
English passive voice; it simply means that passive voice is often
a more colloquial translation. It sounds stilted to say
"someone/something remembers you"; it sounds natural to say "you
are remembered."<br>
</p><span class="gmail-">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p> </p>
<span> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> So'bogh DoS DIp chu' jal rom chut je,</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
<p><i>The rule of accord envisions a new, hidden target
noun</i>?<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>My language here is awkward. An example is called for.
When {mulegh ghaH} is changed to {vIleghlu'}. The rule of
accord requires the prefix {vI-}, so although semantically
there is a null agent and first-person singular patient,
grammatically the rule of accord treats this situation as
if there were a first-person singular subject and
third-person singular object, although that object is
merely a grammatical fiction. This is clearly a special
situation, and I have to wonder whether OVS accurately
reflects how Klingon linguists would interpret it.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span><p><b>mulegh ghaH</b> is not changed to <b>vIleghlu'.</b> You
construct <b>vIleghlu'</b> directly. There is no transformation
from one to another. When I am thinking in Klingon and I intend to
use an indefinite subject, my mind goes straight to <b>vI-</b>
being the proper prefix.<br>
</p>
<p>The <b>vI-</b> prefix does not, according to the description in
TKD, treat <b>vIleghlu'</b> as if it had a first-person singular
subject and a third-person singular object. TKD explicitly says
the prefixes are used to mean something else. With <b>-lu',</b> <b>vI-</b>
MEANS first-person object. There's no grammatical fiction going
on; the prefixes are simply reassigned for <b>-lu'.</b></p>
<p>Now, is it possible that there is some "grammatical fiction"
reason WHY the prefixes are reassigned? Maybe, but that's pure
conjecture and there's no evidence for it anywhere.</p></div></blockquote><div>I wasn't implying that vIleghlu' was a form of mulegh ghaH, but rather considering the effect on the prefix if the speaker rephrased the sentence to eliminate the explicit agent. It's impossible (for me, anyway) not to wonder how verbs with -lu' came to have the prefixes they do. I expect that, as with any language, that it's just natural and unquestioned for most native speakers but that it entered speech for a very definite reason that speakers didn't take for granted at the time. What that reason could be I won't even try to guess.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>
</p><span class="gmail-">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p> </p>
<span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> 'a potlhbe', mu'tlheghDaq DI'rujDaq ghap DoS
DIpqoqvam chu' tu'be'lu'mo'. wotvaD DoS DIp
'oHtaH nungbogh DIp'e'. moHaqvaD chuHwI' DIp
mojlaw' nungbogh DIp. ghu'vam vIqelmeH DIvI' Hol
qechmey /subject/ /object/ je, jImISqu'choH.
'ach vuDlIj QIjmeH /subject/ /object/ je wuv
SuStel. rarchu'be' tlhIngan Hol, qechmeyvam je
'e' vIQub.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>ghu'vam le'mo', SuStel vuD vIHon. latlh meq
vIghaj. 'oSlaHbe' wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'>
<-wI'> je, 'eb lonlu'pu' 'ej pagh chavlu'.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
<p>Hoch 'eb jon Hol 'e' SaHbe' Hol.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>'a chaq SaH tlhInganpu'. 'eb tu'DI', lulo' 'e' bot nuq?
lubotlaHbe'ba' tera'ngan Holtej. 'a 'eb lulo' luneHbe'
tlhIngan, SIghlaHbe' je tera'ngan Holtej.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span><p>Arguing over whether a Klingon would or would not care about a
particular grammatical feature is not a useful line of reasoning,
in my view.<br></p></div></blockquote><div>No, but as any of us who've studied a natural language have observed (and it wouldn't surprise me if this applies to every subscriber on this list), native speakers are under no obligation to speak the language the way the student expects, no matter how good the student's reasoning. Our reasoning is ultimately of a kind with that of the toddler who says "goed" instead of "went." Some of my favorite moments in studying Klingon are Maltz's revelations that Klingons don't speak the language the way we'd expect.<br><br></div><div>There's much to be said for your conservative approach, that it is less likely to generate Klingon expressions that no Klingon would accept than an approach that accepts any Klingon expression that canon doesn't expressly forbid.<br></div><div> </div>~mIp'av<br></div></div></div>