[102522] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] {-moH}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Sun Nov 22 21:09:16 2015
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:08:30 -0500
In-Reply-To: <565268c6.0c3e320a.fb195.ffffc7fd@mx.google.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 11/22/2015 8:15 PM, chransberry@gmail.com wrote:
> This is a very interesting discussion, but I don't understand what all
> the confusion is about. If a causative suffix is added to a transitive
> verb, then of course there are two objects! There's the one being acted
> on, and the one being caused to act. And if they both appear in the same
> sentence, one has to distinguish between them somehow. Just throwing
> both into the object place would jam up the sentence. So one needs to be
> marked, in whatever way makes sense in the context; as a beneficiary or
> whatever. It's a matter of practicality, not syntax. How is this a problem?
jIQochbe'chu'.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
