<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/8/2019 2:23 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e80e06ba-5910-adf9-20a7-4413c71fb3d6@gmx.de">Am
07.07.2019 um 23:15 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">We clearly don't all know, since Lieven
claimed that *-lu'* "reverse the
<br>
object-subject."
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can't leave this uncommented in the archives, as it seems I am
saying
<br>
something completely wrong. TKD says clearly:
<br>
Those prefixes which normally indicate
<br>
first- or second-person /subject/ [...] are used to indicate
<br>
first- or second-person /object/.
<br>
<br>
This means that when {-lu'} is added to a verb with such a prefix,
then
<br>
O-S-meaning of that phrase is reversed. All examples show that,
and
<br>
there's not need to deny:
<br>
<br>
{Daqaw} - "you remember it" (you = subject)
<br>
{Daqawlu'} - "indefinite subject remembers you" (you = object)
<br>
<br>
{vIyaj} - "I understand it" (I = subject)
<br>
{vIyajlu'} - "indefinite subject understands ME" (I = object)
<br>
<br>
{wIlegh} "we see it/him" (we = subject)
<br>
{wIleghlu'} "indefinite subject sees us" (we = object)
<br>
<br>
etc.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>TKD does not present the non<b>-lu'</b> forms that you put here.
TKD never compares two verbs with the same prefix, one without <b>-lu'</b>
and one with.</p>
<p>And this is because TKD is not presenting <b>-lu'</b> as a
suffix that moves the subject to the object position, and it
certainly doesn't say it moves an object to the subject position.
It just says that using <b>-lu'</b> means there is no subject,
and you use a special set of prefixes to indicate the object.
There's no reversal going on.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e80e06ba-5910-adf9-20a7-4413c71fb3d6@gmx.de">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">My point is to show that the subject and
object aren't
<br>
"in" the prefix; the prefix simply agrees with them.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's basically the same. When I see {qa-} I can certainly read
what is
<br>
object and subject. So it really is "in" the prefix. You are just
<br>
nitpicking here on the definition. It's chicken or the egg thing.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Nope, not nitpicking. Your analysis of <b>-lu'</b> leads you to
one conclusion about the original question; mine leads me to
another. There is a significant difference being described.</p>
<p>When you see <b>qa-,</b> you are being told what the subject and
object ARE, even if you can't see the subject and object.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Klingon grammarians refer to the rule that governs the use of
pronominal prefixes as the rule of <b>rom</b> (literally,
"accord"). Grammarians of Federation Standard and many Earth
languages call the phenomenon "agreement." Thus, in the case of
Klingon, the prefix used must "agree" with the noun to which it
refers; if the object noun is plural, for example, the prefix
must be one that is used with plural objects.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Prefixes agree with the noun arguments of the verb, not the other
way around.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>