[102545] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Mon Nov 23 11:39:03 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:38:45 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmM3yDPT-bR4SA2brsUWXrzCeEztPN7gJ=Ow5DQw3LyTAw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============7271533725643893215==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_82DC4AED-D219-4592-A092-21D27AB56622"
--Apple-Mail=_82DC4AED-D219-4592-A092-21D27AB56622
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Thanks for your thoughtful response. More below.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:26 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> De'vID:
>>> Can one say {quv maja'chuq}?
>>> What about {Qu'maj maqawchuqmoH}?
>=20
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>>> I=E2=80=99m pretty sure we=E2=80=99ve never had an example of an =
explicit direct object
>>> in a sentence with a prefix that indicates no direct object.
>>> [...]
>>> Basically, you are making up your own grammar and figuring that =
since
>>> it makes sense to you, it should make sense to everyone else, even =
if
>>> it has nothing to do with the grammar we=E2=80=99ve been given in =
TKD and it=E2=80=99s
>>> never been done in canon.
>=20
> Actually, it *doesn't* completely make sense to me. That's why I'm
> asking questions.
Thanks. I completely misunderstood. It sounded as if you were proposing =
something remarkably strange as an extension of something you=E2=80=99d =
seen.
> SuStel has presented a hypothesis about how some verbs work with
> multiple objects, namely, that "Klingon syntax does not distinguish
> between direct and indirect objects at all, even when it does so
> semantically.=E2=80=9D
I respect his theory, though I=E2=80=99m not convinced that it is a =
generally acceptable truth that Klingon doesn=E2=80=99t need to =
distinguish between direct and indirect objects. I think it=E2=80=99s a =
mistake to overgeneralize the idea that any indirect object can be =
unmarked and placed as if it were the direct object, which is what it =
sounds like SuStel is suggesting if Klingon actually doesn=E2=80=99t =
distinguish between direct and indirect objects, unless both are =
present.
It does explain why it is apparently okay to say either {wo'rIv =
vIghojmoH} or {tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}, (which is what *I* think is =
messy) though when we want both object types written, it comes out =
{wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} (which I think is even =
MESSIER because Worf is the entity being caused to learn and in all the =
examples we were given of stative verbs with {-moH}, the entity being =
caused to have the state the verb describes, that noun was treated as a =
direct object, but for some reason, Worf is not), so apparently =
{wo=E2=80=99rIv vIghojmoH} could be more explicitly written as =
{wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD vIghojmoH}. I haven=E2=80=99t heard anyone suggest =
this is incorrect. It seems to be the case that it is correct, but that =
dropping the {-vaD} is optional, and commonly done.
And if that=E2=80=99s true for {wo=E2=80=99rIv} in this example, why is =
it not true for {pa=E2=80=99} in {pa=E2=80=99 tujmoH qul}? Since =
{wo=E2=80=99rIv} is the one who is caused to learn and {pa=E2=80=99} is =
the thing being caused to be hot, it follows that {pa=E2=80=99vaD tujmoH =
qul} should be the right and proper way to write =E2=80=9CThe fire heats =
the room.=E2=80=9D The room is the beneficiary of the heating as much as =
Worf is the beneficiary of the teaching. Why do we draw a line here? =
What is the difference? Nobody has touched this yet, apparently because =
it is ugly and messy, so those arguing this point just ignore it and try =
to redirect the problem away from facing the grammatical issue at hand.
Yes, I=E2=80=99m being stubborn, but that=E2=80=99s because nobody has =
responded meaningfully to this point. They bring up OTHER points, but =
they don=E2=80=99t address THIS one. They say it=E2=80=99s not messy, =
when the mess is right there, looking at us.
Verbs that normally work with a direct object that then have {-moH} =
applied become exceptional in a rather messy way. I can handle them =
better as messy exceptions than I can accept them as clarifying examples =
that teach us about direct and indirect objects of verbs in general.
I think it falls apart when you compare {wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD tlhIngan Hol =
vIghojmoH} to {pa=E2=80=99 tujmoH qul}. If you could generalize from the =
former, the entity caused to learn is the indirect object, so in the =
latter, the entity caused to be hot should similarly be the indirect =
object. By this logic, it would not be wrong to write this as {pa=E2=80=99=
vaD tujmoH qul}. But that=E2=80=99s not how we=E2=80=99ve been writing =
this sort of thing for decades, and if it=E2=80=99s true, Okrand did a =
remarkably poor job of explaining it in TKD. More likely, he extended =
things a bit by putting {-moH} on a verb that already could take a =
direct object and he didn=E2=80=99t thoroughly think through the =
consequences.
> I just wanted to know how (he thinks) {-chuq} would work under such a
> hypothesis. I'm not *asserting* that that's how it works. I'm asking,
> *assuming* that's how it works, how would {-chuq} work with his idea.
> My goal isn't to invent grammar willy-nilly; it's to find a way to
> parse {quv HIja'chuqQo'} as a grammatical Klingon sentence.
>=20
> If you think I'm "making up [my] own grammar", then how do *you* make
> sense of {quv HIja'chuqQo=E2=80=99}?
Simple: I don=E2=80=99t make sense out of {quv HIja=E2=80=99chuqQo=E2=80=99=
}. It looks like a mistake made by someone who looked up =E2=80=9Cdiscuss=E2=
=80=9D and took that as the literal meaning of the Klingon verb =
{ja=E2=80=99chuq}, which more literally means =E2=80=9Ctell one =
another=E2=80=9D, and decided that since =E2=80=9Cdiscuss=E2=80=9D can =
take a direct object, so can {ja=E2=80=99chuq}.
So, unless {ja=E2=80=99chuq} has actually become a two-syllable verb =
(rare, but they do exist), much as {lo=E2=80=99laH} has become one, and =
these two verbs are now root verbs and do not mean what they would mean =
if they were still one-syllable verbs with a suffix, then this is a =
mistake. If Okrand said it, then Okrand made a mistake, and the only way =
out is to declare that {ja=E2=80=99chuq} is like {lo=E2=80=99laH}.
In case you don=E2=80=99t know the history of {lo=E2=80=99laH}, Okrand =
mistakenly used it adjectivally when {-laH} is not a suffix one can use =
on a verb adjectivally. It was a mistake. But it was canon. So Okrand =
had to declare that {lo=E2=80=99laH} is a different verb than {lo=E2=80=99=
}. So, while {pab vIlo=E2=80=99laH} (I can use grammar) is an example of =
the root verb {lo=E2=80=99} with {laH} added, {pIj lo=E2=80=99laH nuH} =
(A weapon is often valuable) is an example of a different verb, yielding =
such lovely sentences as {nuH lo=E2=80=99laH lo=E2=80=99laH.} =E2=80=9CHe =
can use a valuable weapon.=E2=80=9D
So, if Okrand actually wrote {quv HIja=E2=80=99chuQo=E2=80=99}, then =
apparently {ja=E2=80=99chuq} has become a separate verb root from =
{ja=E2=80=99}, likely because of a mistake on Okrand=E2=80=99s part that =
has now become canon by fiat. It will make translations from English =
into Klingon simpler, but it will make some translations from Klingon to =
English more ambiguous.
Was that a canon example? Let me know. My eyes could use the exercise. =
Rolling.
But if that=E2=80=99s something YOU made up, then it=E2=80=99s a simple =
mistake. The verb {ja=E2=80=99} cannot be both followed by {-chuq} and =
preceded by a direct object. It violates basic Klingon grammar=E2=80=A6 =
unless {ja=E2=80=99chuq} actually is a different root verb. Okrand never =
told us that, if that is the case.
> QeS 'utlh:
>> I know of none either, and I'd make substantial bets that we will =
never,
>> ever see that. Agreement prefixes have the function of signalling the
>> relationships of the nouns in the sentence to the verb and to each =
other,
>> and I think this interchange from the interview with Marc in HQ 7.4 =
is
>> apposite here:
>>=20
>> MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no =
{-Daq}.
>> The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm moving =
along in
>> someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to someplace. You cannot say =
{bIQtIq
>> jIjaH}.
>> WM: At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.
>> MO: Right.
>=20
> Okay. What about {quv'e' maja'chuq} and {Qu'maj'e' maqawchuqmoH}?
That works fine.
> Now {quv} and {Qu'maj} have a function in their respective sentences.
Yes. Or you could say {Qu=E2=80=99maj wIqeltaHvIS maja=E2=80=99chuq.} =
There are many ways around the desire to reveal what we are discussing.
But I=E2=80=99ve come up with another explanation for {quv =
HIja=E2=80=99chuqQo=E2=80=99!}=E2=80=A6
If, like a lot of the Klingon that comes from Okrand, this is not =
punctuated, it could actually be:
{<<quv.>> HIja=E2=80=99chuqQo=E2=80=99!}
If the single word {quv} is a direct quote, then {HIja=E2=80=99chuqQo=E2=80=
=99!} is a command that you and I must not say to each other =
=E2=80=9CHonor.=E2=80=9D Remember that a direct quotation is not =
grammatically linked to the sentence of speech, and while Okrand =
previously used {jatlh} as the only common verb for speech, apparently =
he now uses {ja=E2=80=99} for both people talked to and things being =
said. So, if {ja=E2=80=99} is a verb of speech for the purposes of =
direct quotations, then the grammatically complete sentence is =E2=80=9CDo=
not discuss with me!=E2=80=9D and because {ja=E2=80=99} is a verb of =
speech, the grammatically independent sentence =E2=80=9CHonor=E2=80=9D =
is the direct quotation.
> QeS 'utlh:
>> In terms of the two sentences given by De'vID: no, I would say that =
both of
>> these are categorically impossible. Both of them would require the
>> pronominal prefix {wI-}, at least.
>=20
> =46rom TKD 4.2.1: This suffix is used only with plural subjects. It is
> translated "each other" or "one another". The prefix set indicating
> "no object" is also used when this suffix is used.
=E2=80=A6 unless Okrand declares that {ja=E2=80=99chuq} is a new root =
verb we never knew about before. I hope he never does this.
...
> --=20
> De'vID
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_82DC4AED-D219-4592-A092-21D27AB56622
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">Thanks for your thoughtful response. More =
below.</div><br class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class=3D"">pItlh</div><div =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></span><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:26 AM, De'vID <<a =
href=3D"mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" =
class=3D"">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D"">De'vID:<br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">Can one say {quv maja'chuq}?<br class=3D"">What about {Qu'maj =
maqawchuqmoH}?<br class=3D""></blockquote></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">I=E2=80=99m pretty sure =
we=E2=80=99ve never had an example of an explicit direct object<br =
class=3D"">in a sentence with a prefix that indicates no direct =
object.<br class=3D"">[...]<br class=3D"">Basically, you are making up =
your own grammar and figuring that since<br class=3D"">it makes sense to =
you, it should make sense to everyone else, even if<br class=3D"">it has =
nothing to do with the grammar we=E2=80=99ve been given in TKD and =
it=E2=80=99s<br class=3D"">never been done in canon.<br =
class=3D""></blockquote></blockquote><br class=3D"">Actually, it =
*doesn't* completely make sense to me. That's why I'm<br class=3D"">asking=
questions.<br class=3D""></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>Thanks. I completely misunderstood. It sounded as =
if you were proposing something remarkably strange as an extension of =
something you=E2=80=99d seen.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">SuStel has presented a =
hypothesis about how some verbs work with<br class=3D"">multiple =
objects, namely, that "Klingon syntax does not distinguish<br =
class=3D"">between direct and indirect objects at all, even when it does =
so<br class=3D"">semantically.=E2=80=9D</div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>I respect his theory, though I=E2=80=99m not =
convinced that it is a generally acceptable truth that Klingon doesn=E2=80=
=99t need to distinguish between direct and indirect objects. I think =
it=E2=80=99s a mistake to overgeneralize the idea that any indirect =
object can be unmarked and placed as if it were the direct object, which =
is what it sounds like SuStel is suggesting if Klingon actually =
doesn=E2=80=99t distinguish between direct and indirect objects, unless =
both are present.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>It does explain =
why it is apparently okay to say either {wo'rIv vIghojmoH} or {tlhIngan =
Hol vIghojmoH}, (which is what *I* think is messy) though when we want =
both object types written, it comes out {wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD tlhIngan Hol =
vIghojmoH} (which I think is even MESSIER because Worf is the entity =
being caused to learn and in all the examples we were given of stative =
verbs with {-moH}, the entity being caused to have the state the verb =
describes, that noun was treated as a direct object, but for some =
reason, Worf is not), so apparently {wo=E2=80=99rIv vIghojmoH} could be =
more explicitly written as {wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD vIghojmoH}. I haven=E2=80=99=
t heard anyone suggest this is incorrect. It seems to be the case that =
it is correct, but that dropping the {-vaD} is optional, and commonly =
done.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>And if that=E2=80=99s true for =
{wo=E2=80=99rIv} in this example, why is it not true for {pa=E2=80=99} =
in {pa=E2=80=99 tujmoH qul}? Since {wo=E2=80=99rIv} is the one who is =
caused to learn and {pa=E2=80=99} is the thing being caused to be hot, =
it follows that {pa=E2=80=99vaD tujmoH qul} should be the right and =
proper way to write =E2=80=9CThe fire heats the room.=E2=80=9D The room =
is the beneficiary of the heating as much as Worf is the beneficiary of =
the teaching. Why do we draw a line here? What is the difference? Nobody =
has touched this yet, apparently because it is ugly and messy, so those =
arguing this point just ignore it and try to redirect the problem away =
from facing the grammatical issue at hand.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>Yes, I=E2=80=99m being stubborn, but that=E2=80=99s =
because nobody has responded meaningfully to this point. They bring up =
OTHER points, but they don=E2=80=99t address THIS one. They say it=E2=80=99=
s not messy, when the mess is right there, looking at us.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>Verbs that normally work with a direct object that =
then have {-moH} applied become exceptional in a rather messy way. I can =
handle them better as messy exceptions than I can accept them as =
clarifying examples that teach us about direct and indirect objects of =
verbs in general.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>I think it falls =
apart when you compare {wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} to =
{pa=E2=80=99 tujmoH qul}. If you could generalize from the former, the =
entity caused to learn is the indirect object, so in the latter, the =
entity caused to be hot should similarly be the indirect object. By this =
logic, it would not be wrong to write this as {pa=E2=80=99vaD tujmoH =
qul}. But that=E2=80=99s not how we=E2=80=99ve been writing this sort of =
thing for decades, and if it=E2=80=99s true, Okrand did a remarkably =
poor job of explaining it in TKD. More likely, he extended things a bit =
by putting {-moH} on a verb that already could take a direct object and =
he didn=E2=80=99t thoroughly think through the consequences.</div><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">I just =
wanted to know how (he thinks) {-chuq} would work under such a<br =
class=3D"">hypothesis. I'm not *asserting* that that's how it works. I'm =
asking,<br class=3D"">*assuming* that's how it works, how would {-chuq} =
work with his idea.<br class=3D"">My goal isn't to invent grammar =
willy-nilly; it's to find a way to<br class=3D"">parse {quv =
HIja'chuqQo'} as a grammatical Klingon sentence.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">If you think I'm "making up [my] own grammar", then how do =
*you* make<br class=3D"">sense of {quv HIja'chuqQo=E2=80=99}?<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote><div><br class=3D""></div><div>Simple: I =
don=E2=80=99t make sense out of {quv HIja=E2=80=99chuqQo=E2=80=99}. It =
looks like a mistake made by someone who looked up =E2=80=9Cdiscuss=E2=80=9D=
and took that as the literal meaning of the Klingon verb {ja=E2=80=99chuq=
}, which more literally means =E2=80=9Ctell one another=E2=80=9D, and =
decided that since =E2=80=9Cdiscuss=E2=80=9D can take a direct object, =
so can {ja=E2=80=99chuq}.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>So, unless =
{ja=E2=80=99chuq} has actually become a two-syllable verb (rare, but =
they do exist), much as {lo=E2=80=99laH} has become one, and these two =
verbs are now root verbs and do not mean what they would mean if they =
were still one-syllable verbs with a suffix, then this is a mistake. If =
Okrand said it, then Okrand made a mistake, and the only way out is to =
declare that {ja=E2=80=99chuq} is like {lo=E2=80=99laH}.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>In case you don=E2=80=99t know the history of =
{lo=E2=80=99laH}, Okrand mistakenly used it adjectivally when {-laH} is =
not a suffix one can use on a verb adjectivally. It was a mistake. But =
it was canon. So Okrand had to declare that {lo=E2=80=99laH} is a =
different verb than {lo=E2=80=99}. So, while {pab vIlo=E2=80=99laH} (I =
can use grammar) is an example of the root verb {lo=E2=80=99} with {laH} =
added, {pIj lo=E2=80=99laH nuH} (A weapon is often valuable) is an =
example of a different verb, yielding such lovely sentences as {nuH =
lo=E2=80=99laH lo=E2=80=99laH.} =E2=80=9CHe can use a valuable =
weapon.=E2=80=9D</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>So, if Okrand =
actually wrote {quv HIja=E2=80=99chuQo=E2=80=99}, then apparently =
{ja=E2=80=99chuq} has become a separate verb root from {ja=E2=80=99}, =
likely because of a mistake on Okrand=E2=80=99s part that has now become =
canon by fiat. It will make translations from English into Klingon =
simpler, but it will make some translations from Klingon to English more =
ambiguous.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>Was that a canon example? =
Let me know. My eyes could use the exercise. Rolling.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>But if that=E2=80=99s something YOU made up, then =
it=E2=80=99s a simple mistake. The verb {ja=E2=80=99} cannot be both =
followed by {-chuq} and preceded by a direct object. It violates basic =
Klingon grammar=E2=80=A6 unless {ja=E2=80=99chuq} actually is a =
different root verb. Okrand never told us that, if that is the =
case.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">QeS 'utlh:<br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">I=
know of none either, and I'd make substantial bets that we will =
never,<br class=3D"">ever see that. Agreement prefixes have the function =
of signalling the<br class=3D"">relationships of the nouns in the =
sentence to the verb and to each other,<br class=3D"">and I think this =
interchange from the interview with Marc in HQ 7.4 is<br =
class=3D"">apposite here:<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">MO: Yes. But you =
don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no {-Daq}.<br =
class=3D"">The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm =
moving along in<br class=3D"">someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to =
someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq<br class=3D"">jIjaH}.<br class=3D"">WM: =
At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.<br class=3D"">MO:=
Right.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">Okay. What about =
{quv'e' maja'chuq} and {Qu'maj'e' maqawchuqmoH}?<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote><div><br class=3D""></div><div>That works =
fine.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">Now {quv} and {Qu'maj} have a function in their respective =
sentences.<br class=3D""></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>Yes. Or you could say {Qu=E2=80=99maj wIqeltaHvIS =
maja=E2=80=99chuq.} There are many ways around the desire to reveal what =
we are discussing.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>But I=E2=80=99ve =
come up with another explanation for {quv =
HIja=E2=80=99chuqQo=E2=80=99!}=E2=80=A6</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>If, like a lot of the Klingon that comes from =
Okrand, this is not punctuated, it could actually be:</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>{<<quv.>> =
HIja=E2=80=99chuqQo=E2=80=99!}</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>If =
the single word {quv} is a direct quote, then {HIja=E2=80=99chuqQo=E2=80=99=
!} is a command that you and I must not say to each other =E2=80=9CHonor.=E2=
=80=9D Remember that a direct quotation is not grammatically linked to =
the sentence of speech, and while Okrand previously used {jatlh} as the =
only common verb for speech, apparently he now uses {ja=E2=80=99} for =
both people talked to and things being said. So, if {ja=E2=80=99} is a =
verb of speech for the purposes of direct quotations, then the =
grammatically complete sentence is =E2=80=9CDo not discuss with me!=E2=80=9D=
and because {ja=E2=80=99} is a verb of speech, the grammatically =
independent sentence =E2=80=9CHonor=E2=80=9D is the direct =
quotation.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">QeS 'utlh:<br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">In terms of the two sentences given by De'vID: no, I would =
say that both of<br class=3D"">these are categorically impossible. Both =
of them would require the<br class=3D"">pronominal prefix {wI-}, at =
least.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">=46rom TKD 4.2.1: This =
suffix is used only with plural subjects. It is<br class=3D"">translated =
"each other" or "one another". The prefix set indicating<br class=3D"">"no=
object" is also used when this suffix is used.<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote><div><br class=3D""></div><div>=E2=80=A6 =
unless Okrand declares that {ja=E2=80=99chuq} is a new root verb we =
never knew about before. I hope he never does this.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div><br class=3D""></div>...<br class=3D""><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">-- <br class=3D"">De'vID<br =
class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br =
class=3D"">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_82DC4AED-D219-4592-A092-21D27AB56622--
--===============7271533725643893215==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============7271533725643893215==--
