[93042"] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Dhammapada 183
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Sat Apr 28 01:24:38 2012
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:24:06 +1000
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120427194320.04565aa8@flyingstart.ca>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
jatlh Qov:
> What I suppose I meant was, "the lesson learned only gets to be the
> object of the verb because the student is hiding under the -vaD.
> Ordinarily the student should be the object of ghojmoH."
jIjang, jIjatlh:
> That's English talk. :) I'd argue it goes the other way: the student
> can only sneak up the sentence hierarchy to direct object when there's
> no other direct object to block it doing so. A while ago ghunchu'wI'
> suggested it might be a parallel to the prefix trick, which makes some
> sense to me.
mujang Qov, jatlh:
> The verb is {ghojmoH}. ghojlaHbe' paQDI'norgh.
net Sov, but I'm not sure I understand what your point is. I ghoj a
paQDI'norgh, but I can also ghojmoH a paQDI'norgh.
> ghojlaH ghojwI' neH. vaj ghojwI' ghojnISlu'.
ghojnIS*moH*lu', qar'a'?
'ach paQDI'norgh'e', ghojwI'*vaD* 'oH ghojnISmoHlu'. That's what I mean:
when there's a direct object, it stays the same whether the verb has a
-moH or not. My objection is to the idea that "ordinarily the student
should be the object of ghojmoH". I argue that it's not the default,
that the student only gets to be direct object if there's not one there
already.
QeS 'utlh
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
