[102548] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Holt)
Mon Nov 23 12:58:21 2015
From: David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:58:01 +0000
In-Reply-To: <2AA66EB8-26FA-4847-966B-8E23C3BD3FBE@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============8883638296004100496==
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_DM3PR16MB0700D6CD4652E363CCA56EFBA4070DM3PR16MB0700namp_"
--_000_DM3PR16MB0700D6CD4652E363CCA56EFBA4070DM3PR16MB0700namp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlh lojmIt tI'wI'nuv:
> And if that's true for {wo'rIv} in this example, why is it not true for
> {pa'} in {pa' tujmoH qul}? Since {wo'rIv} is the one who is caused to
> learn and {pa'} is the thing being caused to be hot, it follows that
> {pa'vaD tujmoH qul} should be the right and proper way to write
> "The fire heats the room." 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.
I do, indeed, hold to the concept that Klingons note a difference in the st=
ative verbs ("be verbs)" and the active verbs and that the stative verbs wo=
rk differently with {-moH} than active verbs do. It's not the only differe=
nce between the types of verbs, so I am comfortable adding this to the list=
of differences.
janSIy
--_000_DM3PR16MB0700D6CD4652E363CCA56EFBA4070DM3PR16MB0700namp_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margi=
n-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;back=
ground-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>ghItlh <span style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; orph=
ans: 2; widows: 2;">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv:</span></p>
<br>
<div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div>
<div>
<div>> And if that’s true for {wo’rIv} in this example, why =
is it not true for</div>
<div>> {pa’} in {pa’ tujmoH qul}? Since {wo’rIv} is th=
e one who is caused to</div>
<div>> learn and {pa’} is the thing being caused to be hot, it fol=
lows that</div>
<div>> {pa’vaD tujmoH qul} should be the right and proper way to w=
rite</div>
<div>> “The fire heats the room.” The room is the beneficiar=
y of the</div>
<div>> heating as much as Worf is the beneficiary of the teaching. Why d=
o</div>
<div>> we draw a line here? What is the difference? Nobody has touched</=
div>
<div>> this yet, apparently because it is ugly and messy, so those argui=
ng</div>
<div>> this point just ignore it and try to redirect the problem away fr=
om</div>
<div>> facing the grammatical issue at hand.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>I do, indeed, hold to the concept that Klingons note a difference in t=
he stative verbs ("be verbs)" and the active verbs and that =
the stative verbs work differently with {-moH} than active verbs do. =
It's not the only difference between the types of verbs,
so I am comfortable adding this to the list of differences.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>janSIy</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_DM3PR16MB0700D6CD4652E363CCA56EFBA4070DM3PR16MB0700namp_--
--===============8883638296004100496==
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
--===============8883638296004100496==--
