[Tlhingan-hol] Beginner Story: nuq bop bom 'ay''a' wej

[Wiechu]

That would actually justify use of { lu- } in { pa'Daq tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'
} as prefix is referring to object in this particular case. And that means
Qov didn't make error after all. However the example in TKD says { naDev
puqpu' tu'lu' }. And as { puqpu' } which is an object of that sentence is
plural, shouldn't there be { lu- } attached to { tu'lu' } ?

SanuQchugh jIQoS

--
Sincerely,

Daniel Danecki (Wiechu)



> > It depends on how you understand verb "are". In sentence
> > "There are Klingons in the room" I assumed (perhaps I'm
> > incorrect) that Klingons are the subject because "they are".
>
> Ah, alright; I assumed you were referring to the Klingon sentence.
>
> > However according to TKD {lu-} does not mark a plural,
> > third-person object. It marks plural, third-person subject
> > with singular, third-person subject. Am I right ?
>
> Not when the -lu' suffix is applied; then it marks a
> generic/unknown/unspecified subject and a plural, third-person object.


> I can recommend using the table on this page as a reference:
> www.klingonska.org/dict/tables.html
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Daniel Danecki (Wiechu)
>
>
> 2011/11/4 Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se<mailto:felixm at kth.se>>
> Just want to notify you that I believe you're mixing up the words
> "subject" and "object": The subject is that which does/is something, and
> the object is that to which something is done. The -lu' suffix marks an
> unknown/unspecified/general subject, and when used together with the lu-
> prefix marks a plural, third-person object.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Wiechu [ddanecki at gmail.com<mailto:ddanecki at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 07:45
> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org<mailto:tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Beginner Story: nuq bop bom 'ay''a' wej
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm sorry if I'm wrong in any way. I'm the beginner who was asking about
> "lutu'lu'".
>
> In my opinion this error comes from treating tu'lu' as english "There is".
> So let's assume it is for a second. To say "there are people in the room",
> it's logical to add lu- at the beginning so the subject was plural as in
> this case the subject would be a person or persons who are in the room...
> However even in this case it isn't 100% correct to use lu- because there's
> no object in "there are klingons in the room" sentence, therefore there's
> no need to lu-, "0" instead should be used for <they> -> <none>.  pa'Daq
> tlhInganpu' tu'lu' should be enough.
>
> Now if you look at the tu'lu' in the Klingon way (As explained in TKD),
> tu' means to observe, find. lu' means that there's indefinite subject and
> the object is a person / persons who are being observed.
>
> pa'Daq tlhInganpu' tu'lu' someone observes klingons in the room. If you
> add lu- at the beginnig, the subject is plural so more than one person is
> observing (what doesn't really change anything, besides the fact that
> there's more people who can confirm that klingons are in the room) but
> what's more important with lu- you change object to singular him/her/it.
> And you can't really use it with tlhInganpu' anymore because it's an error.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Daniel Danecki (Wiechu)
>
>
> 2011/11/4 Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca<mailto:robyn at flyingstart.ca
> ><mailto:robyn at flyingstart.ca<mailto:robyn at flyingstart.ca>>>
> I think I've been convinced by the ubiquity of the so-called error,
> including the example illustrating the rule, that it is not an error, that
> it is the way the language it. It's exactly analogous to the French ce
> n'est pas being used were ce ne sont pas should be, and the same thing
> isn't unknown in English, "There's plenty of them around here."  "There's
> five of them."  "There's" is just easier to say than "There'r"  I guess.
>
> You know how when Germans learn English [hi Germans!] they use rules that
> the two languages once shared and produce verb forms that while not
> actually ungrammatical in English are marked because no native English
> speaker has used them for over a hundred years?  I am now convinced that
> lutu'lu' is a hypercorrection like that. I might even stop using it. At
> least in dialogue.
>
>
> We've discussed this in the past. There are a couple of possible
> explanations. One is that it's a fixed expression: just add tu'lu' to mean
> "there is/are." Another is that it's an example of the phenomenon described
> in KGT: "Common Errors: The Case of lu-."
>
> I have a vague notion that lutu'lu' has appeared somewhere, but it's not
> in TKD or KGT, the only materials I have handy and searchable right now.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org<mailto:
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org><mailto:
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org<mailto:
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org>>
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org<mailto:
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org><mailto:
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org<mailto:
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org>>
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20111104/1c229f18/attachment.html>