[102553] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Mon Nov 23 15:01:52 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:01:39 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABDLMbU2LKYviAC7+=MgMfetp40=3xR3BX4hm=Y0ZUPjZDzhbw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============4739671724727376198==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C84416C2-6AF4-47AA-9E77-F8577809450F"
--Apple-Mail=_C84416C2-6AF4-47AA-9E77-F8577809450F
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
I agreed with you up to the point where you suggest that the prefix =
trick can be used.
Note that the prefix trick only works when the indirect object is first =
or second person. It=E2=80=99s never used with third person for all =
parties, as you suggest. And without that, you haven=E2=80=99t explained =
why {-vaD} is not needed when there is no explicit direct object.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 2:39 PM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller =
<esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> If I may jump into the heated debate... I've been following this =
discussion the whole time, and I think it actually is you, lojmIt =
tI'wI'nuv, who is trying to bend the rules and come up with grammar that =
is not supported by canon. You draw very unlikely conclusions from one =
or two canonical sentences and apply your theory to types of sentences =
for which we already have canon examples, that already contradict your =
theory. I'll explain what I mean...
>=20
> {-moH} is a causative suffix which increases the valency of the verb =
by +1, i.e. an intransitive verb like 'to sleep' (including stative =
verbs like 'to be hot') becomes transitive, a transitive verb like 'to =
learn' becomes ditransitive. Nothing new here. The new argument =
introduced, the causer, is always the new subject. We all agree on that. =
The former subject is demoted to the status of a direct object. That is =
why we have:
>=20
> {tul pa'.} =3D 'The room is hot.'
> {pa' tulmoH qul.} =3D 'The fire heats up the room.'
>=20
> This simple rule is so basic that no one would have doubts about it. =
It doesn't even present difficulties to beginners. And it's backed up by =
dozens of examples from canon, e.g.:
>=20
> {tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH.} =3D 'I form a boarding party.'
> {Duj ronmoH 'owI'.} =3D 'The pilot banks the vessel.'
> {yIngaQmoH!} =3D 'Secure him!'
> {Hoch qImmoH mu'meyDaj [...]} =3D 'All were bemused by his words =
[...]'
>=20
> The third example, {ngaQ}, is not just intransitive, like the others, =
but also stative, it's one of those adjective-like be-verbs. We have no =
example in cannon that shows that the new object, the causee, of a =
causativized stative verb (or intransitive verb) is marked by {-vaD}. =
None.
>=20
> When causativizing a transitive verb, the causer becomes the subject. =
Now, it's reasonable to assume that all the former agents get demoted, =
because that is what happens in many Terran languages. The old direct =
object would then become an indirect object or part of a prepositional =
phrase, while the old subject becomes the new direct object: Worf =
remembers his heritage. ---> The sash reminds Worf of his heritage. =
Right? Well, in English yes.
> But we know that Klingon isn't a Terran language. And probably not =
even in all Terran languages causatives or case hierarchies work the =
same. So here it's different: The causer is the new subject, the former =
subject becomes the indirect object marked with {-vaD}, the former =
object remains the direct object. Here are the sentences again, the =
first one isn't cannon but we know it's right:
>=20
> {quHDaj qaw ghaH.} =3D 'He remembers his heritage.'
> {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him of his =
heritage.'
>=20
> That's just how it is. What we can do with that sentence, now, is =
taking away the arguments. I can remove the indirect object, because it =
can be implied, and I can also remove the direct object, because that's =
possible in Klingon. We'd simply understand an implied "it" there:
>=20
> {quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds [someone] of his =
heritage.'
> This someone could as well be Riker or Data. Anyone who upon seeing =
the sash thinks: Oh right, yeah, he's Klingon.
>=20
> {ghaHvaD qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him [of something].'
> Literally, it makes-remember something to him. It's a vague sentence, =
but still grammatical. Because of the null-prefix we interprete it as an =
it. The sash makes it be remembered to him. The sash reminds him of it.
>=20
> And there is the prefix-trick, linguistically also known as the dative =
shift. So we can form:
>=20
> {ghaH qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him.'
>=20
> I think, so far we've only seen the dative shift work without the =
former indirect object being stated explicitly. Things like {paq munob.} =
'He gave me the book.' There is no slot left in this sentence for a =
{ghaH}, because it's already taken up by {paq}. We've only seen dative =
shifts / prefix-tricks work with indirect objects that were not overtly =
mentioned, but implied by the agreement prefix on the verb.
> If I'm Worf, then I could say the following three sentences, in which =
the role of the prefix shift is clearer:
>=20
> {jIHvaD quHwIj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds me of my =
heritage.'
> {jIHvaD qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds me [of it].' =
(null-prefix meaning 3SG>3SG, here)
> {muqawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds me.'
>=20
> I think there is no counterevidence that suggests that the =
prefix-trick couldn't work for overt nouns, right? At least, if there's =
no other direct object filling the slot. Hence, I derive:
>=20
> {wo'rIv qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds Worf.'
>=20
> Now compare this one to the one where we left out {ghaHvaD}:
>=20
> {quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds [someone] of his =
heritage.'
>=20
> They look the same on the surface, structurally. But actually very =
different things have happened. If I could draw syntax trees here, you =
could see it. For a moment, take the English ditransitive verb "to =
teach" as a parallel. It works the same:
>=20
> I teach Klingon to you.
> I teach Klingon.
> I teach to you. >> I teach you.
>=20
> They're all correct English, aren't they? The "I teach to you." one =
seems incomplete and we prefer to apply the dative shift in English.
>=20
> And I strongly believe that all this above (it's not so complex =
actually, I just wanted to spell it all out to make it clear) is the =
underlying structure that allows us to say:
>=20
> {SoHvaD tlhIngan vIghojmoH.}
> {tlhIngan vIghojmoH.}
> {SoHvaD vIghojmoH.} >> {qaghojmoH.}
>=20
> So there really is no difference between Worf and the room. The =
difference lies in the nature (to be precise: in the valency or =
transitivity) of the verb we modify. {tuj} is intransitive and has a =
valency of 1, so the syntax is trivial. {ghoj} is transitive and has a =
valency of 2, so there the issue of assigning the roles arises. Most =
Terran languages follow the hierarchy subject > direct object > indirect =
object > prepositional phrase, but Klingon doesn't have to follow these =
rules. It was designed to be inhuman (or let's say: un-English).
>=20
> So, I see no problem here. I acknowledge that it might be a little =
confusing, but it's no reason to invent new grammar and suddenly speak =
of fires heating up FOR rooms or things like that and claim that canon =
predicts such sentences when it does clearly not.
>=20
> As for {ja'chuq}, that's a different question. I don't have an answer =
for that yet. I'll have to think about it more.
>=20
> - Andr=C3=A9
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 2015-11-23 19:28 GMT+01:00 Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com =
<mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>>:
> It might help me if you explain how stative verbs (=E2=80=9Cbe =
verbs)=E2=80=9D behave differently when {-moH} is added.
>=20
> As I remember it, these were the words we have had the most experience =
with using {-moH}. They set the standard, and initially, when someone =
thought of using it with a verb that can take a direct object, there was =
some confusion, and controversy ever since.
>=20
> Klingon grammar in most every other area is consistent. When I talk =
about messiness, I=E2=80=99m talking about inconsistency. I=E2=80=99m =
fine with exceptions, but exceptions to exceptions to exceptions just =
gets a little too weird for me.
>=20
> Worf and the room have the same semantic and syntactic relationship =
with teaching (causing to learn) and heating (causing to be hot) =
respectively. They should have the same grammar applied to them. Okrand =
has given us no reason to expect otherwise.
>=20
> No one has addressed what the difference is between Worf and the room, =
in relation to the two verbs, and why one gets {-vaD}, but the other =
doesn=E2=80=99t. For that matter, Okrand hasn=E2=80=99t given us a =
reason that Worf gets {-vaD} if there=E2=80=99s a direct object, and he =
doesn=E2=80=99t get it if there isn=E2=80=99t. His semantic or syntactic =
or grammatical role in learning has not changed between the two =
examples.
>=20
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:58 PM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com =
<mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com>> wrote:
>>=20
>> ghItlh lojmIt tI'wI'nuv:
>>=20
>> > 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.
>>=20
>> I do, indeed, hold to the concept that Klingons note a difference in =
the 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.
>>=20
>> janSIy
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol =
<http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol =
<http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
>=20
>=20
--Apple-Mail=_C84416C2-6AF4-47AA-9E77-F8577809450F
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"">I agreed with you up to the point where you suggest that the =
prefix trick can be used.<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Note that the prefix trick only works when the indirect =
object is first or second person. It=E2=80=99s never used with third =
person for all parties, as you suggest. And without that, you haven=E2=80=99=
t explained why {-vaD} is not needed when there is no explicit direct =
object.<br class=3D""><div class=3D""><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 2:39 PM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller <<a =
href=3D"mailto:esperantist@gmail.com" =
class=3D"">esperantist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D"">If I may jump =
into the heated debate... I've been following this discussion the whole =
time, and I think it actually is you, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv, who is trying to =
bend the rules and come up with grammar that is not supported by canon. =
You draw very unlikely conclusions from one or two canonical sentences =
and apply your theory to types of sentences for which we already have =
canon examples, that already contradict your theory. I'll explain what I =
mean...<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div>{-moH} is a causative suffix =
which increases the valency of the verb by +1, i.e. an intransitive verb =
like 'to sleep' (including stative verbs like 'to be hot') becomes =
transitive, a transitive verb like 'to learn' becomes ditransitive. =
Nothing new here. The new argument introduced, the causer, is always the =
new subject. We all agree on that. The former subject is demoted to the =
status of a direct object. That is why we have:<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div>{tul pa'.} =3D 'The room is hot.'<br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{pa' tulmoH qul.} =3D 'The fire heats =
up the room.'<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">This =
simple rule is so basic that no one would have doubts about it. It =
doesn't even present difficulties to beginners. And it's backed up by =
dozens of examples from canon, e.g.:<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH.} =3D 'I form a =
boarding party.'<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{Duj ronmoH 'owI'.} =
=3D 'The pilot banks the vessel.'<br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">{yIngaQmoH!} =3D 'Secure him!'<br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">{Hoch qImmoH mu'meyDaj [...]} =3D 'All were bemused by his =
words [...]'<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The =
third example, {ngaQ}, is not just intransitive, like the others, but =
also stative, it's one of those adjective-like be-verbs. We have no =
example in cannon that shows that the new object, the causee, of a =
causativized stative verb (or intransitive verb) is marked by {-vaD}. =
None.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">When =
causativizing a transitive verb, the causer becomes the subject. Now, =
it's reasonable to assume that all the former agents get demoted, =
because that is what happens in many Terran languages. The old direct =
object would then become an indirect object or part of a prepositional =
phrase, while the old subject becomes the new direct object: Worf =
remembers his heritage. ---> The sash reminds Worf of his heritage. =
Right? Well, in English yes.<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">But we =
know that Klingon isn't a Terran language. And probably not even in all =
Terran languages causatives or case hierarchies work the same. So here =
it's different: The causer is the new subject, the former subject =
becomes the indirect object marked with {-vaD}, the former object =
remains the direct object. Here are the sentences again, the first one =
isn't cannon but we know it's right:<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{quHDaj qaw ghaH.} =3D 'He remembers =
his heritage.'<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{ghaHvaD quHDaj =
qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him of his heritage.'<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">That's just how it is. =
What we can do with that sentence, now, is taking away the arguments. I =
can remove the indirect object, because it can be implied, and I can =
also remove the direct object, because that's possible in Klingon. We'd =
simply understand an implied "it" there:<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash =
reminds [someone] of his heritage.'<br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">This someone could as well be Riker or Data. Anyone who upon =
seeing the sash thinks: Oh right, yeah, he's Klingon.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{ghaHvaD qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash =
reminds him [of something].'<br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Literally, it makes-remember something to him. It's a vague =
sentence, but still grammatical. Because of the null-prefix we =
interprete it as an it. The sash makes it be remembered to him. The sash =
reminds him of it.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">And =
there is the prefix-trick, linguistically also known as the dative =
shift. So we can form:<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">{ghaH qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him.'<br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D"">I think, so far we've =
only seen the dative shift work without the former indirect object being =
stated explicitly. Things like {paq munob.} 'He gave me the book.' There =
is no slot left in this sentence for a {ghaH}, because it's already =
taken up by {paq}. We've only seen dative shifts / prefix-tricks work =
with indirect objects that were not overtly mentioned, but implied by =
the agreement prefix on the verb.<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">If =
I'm Worf, then I could say the following three sentences, in which the =
role of the prefix shift is clearer:<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">{jIHvaD =
quHwIj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds me of my heritage.'<br =
class=3D"">{jIHvaD qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds me [of it].' =
(null-prefix meaning 3SG>3SG, here)<br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">{muqawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds me.'<br class=3D""><br=
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I think there is no counterevidence =
that suggests that the prefix-trick couldn't work for overt nouns, =
right? At least, if there's no other direct object filling the slot. =
Hence, I derive:<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">{wo'rIv qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds Worf.'<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Now compare this one to =
the one where we left out {ghaHvaD}:<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash =
reminds [someone] of his heritage.'<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">They look the same on the surface, =
structurally. But actually very different things have happened. If I =
could draw syntax trees here, you could see it. For a moment, take the =
English ditransitive verb "to teach" as a parallel. It works the =
same:<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I teach Klingon =
to you.<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I teach Klingon.<br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I teach to you. >> I teach =
you.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">They're all =
correct English, aren't they? The "I teach to you." one seems incomplete =
and we prefer to apply the dative shift in English.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">And I strongly believe that all this =
above (it's not so complex actually, I just wanted to spell it all out =
to make it clear) is the underlying structure that allows us to say:<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{SoHvaD tlhIngan =
vIghojmoH.}<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{tlhIngan vIghojmoH.}<br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{SoHvaD vIghojmoH.} >> =
{qaghojmoH.}<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">So there =
really is no difference between Worf and the room. The difference lies =
in the nature (to be precise: in the valency or transitivity) of the =
verb we modify. {tuj} is intransitive and has a valency of 1, so the =
syntax is trivial. {ghoj} is transitive and has a valency of 2, so there =
the issue of assigning the roles arises. Most Terran languages follow =
the hierarchy subject > direct object > indirect object > =
prepositional phrase, but Klingon doesn't have to follow these rules. It =
was designed to be inhuman (or let's say: un-English).<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">So, I see no problem here. I =
acknowledge that it might be a little confusing, but it's no reason to =
invent new grammar and suddenly speak of fires heating up FOR rooms or =
things like that and claim that canon predicts such sentences when it =
does clearly not.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">As =
for {ja'chuq}, that's a different question. I don't have an answer for =
that yet. I'll have to think about it more.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">- Andr=C3=A9<br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br class=3D""><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-11-23 19:28 GMT+01:00 Will Martin <span =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a href=3D"mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com" =
target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br =
class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word" class=3D""><div class=3D"">It might help =
me if you explain how stative verbs (=E2=80=9Cbe verbs)=E2=80=9D behave =
differently when {-moH} is added.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">As I remember it, these were the words =
we have had the most experience with using {-moH}. They set the =
standard, and initially, when someone thought of using it with a verb =
that can take a direct object, there was some confusion, and controversy =
ever since.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Klingon grammar in most every other area is consistent. When =
I talk about messiness, I=E2=80=99m talking about inconsistency. I=E2=80=99=
m fine with exceptions, but exceptions to exceptions to exceptions just =
gets a little too weird for me.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Worf and the room have the same =
semantic and syntactic relationship with teaching (causing to learn) and =
heating (causing to be hot) respectively. They should have the same =
grammar applied to them. Okrand has given us no reason to expect =
otherwise.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">No =
one has addressed what the difference is between Worf and the room, in =
relation to the two verbs, and why one gets {-vaD}, but the other =
doesn=E2=80=99t. For that matter, Okrand hasn=E2=80=99t given us a =
reason that Worf gets {-vaD} if there=E2=80=99s a direct object, and he =
doesn=E2=80=99t get it if there isn=E2=80=99t. His semantic or syntactic =
or grammatical role in learning has not changed between the two =
examples.</div><br class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<span style=3D"border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; =
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; =
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; =
word-spacing: 0px;" class=3D""><div class=3D"">pItlh</div><div =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></span><br class=3D"">
</div>
<br class=3D""><div class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:58 PM, David Holt <<a =
href=3D"mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">kenjutsuka@live.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div =
style=3D"font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-s=
pacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-tra=
nsform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:12pt;background-=
color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" =
class=3D""><div style=3D"margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px" =
class=3D"">ghItlh <span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px" class=3D"">lojmIt =
tI'wI'nuv:</span></div><br class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><div=
class=3D""><div class=3D"">> And if that=E2=80=99s true for =
{wo=E2=80=99rIv} in this example, why is it not true for</div><div =
class=3D"">> {pa=E2=80=99} in {pa=E2=80=99 tujmoH qul}? Since =
{wo=E2=80=99rIv} is the one who is caused to</div><div class=3D"">> =
learn and {pa=E2=80=99} is the thing being caused to be hot, it follows =
that</div><div class=3D"">> {pa=E2=80=99vaD tujmoH qul} should be the =
right and proper way to write</div><div class=3D"">> =E2=80=9CThe =
fire heats the room.=E2=80=9D The room is the beneficiary of =
the</div><div class=3D"">> heating as much as Worf is the beneficiary =
of the teaching. Why do</div><div class=3D"">> we draw a line here? =
What is the difference? Nobody has touched</div><div class=3D"">> =
this yet, apparently because it is ugly and messy, so those =
arguing</div><div class=3D"">> this point just ignore it and try to =
redirect the problem away from</div><div class=3D"">> facing the =
grammatical issue at hand.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></div><div class=3D"">I do, indeed, hold to the concept =
that Klingons note a difference in the 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 class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">janSIy</div></div></div></div><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-varia=
nt:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text=
-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-s=
pacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" =
class=3D"">_______________________________________________</span><br =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-varia=
nt:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text=
-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-s=
pacing:0px" class=3D""><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-varia=
nt:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text=
-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-s=
pacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol =
mailing list</span><br =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-varia=
nt:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text=
-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-s=
pacing:0px" class=3D""><a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-varia=
nt:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text=
-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-s=
pacing:0px" target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-varia=
nt:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text=
-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-s=
pacing:0px" class=3D""><a =
href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-varia=
nt:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text=
-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-s=
pacing:0px" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a></div></bl=
ockquote></div><br class=3D""></div><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"">
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a><br =
class=3D"">
<br class=3D""></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_C84416C2-6AF4-47AA-9E77-F8577809450F--
--===============4739671724727376198==
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
--===============4739671724727376198==--
