[102554] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Mon Nov 23 15:14:16 2015
In-Reply-To: <4859A74F-DFF2-44AE-B8CF-FF7E2DE71CFF@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:14:01 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
To: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Cc: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============4991457555448070383==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38b5ab2e83c05253add8a
--001a11c38b5ab2e83c05253add8a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2015-11-23 21:01 GMT+01:00 Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>:
> 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 o=
r
> 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 no=
t needed
> when there is no explicit direct object.
>
>
Well, do we know that it doesn't work with third persons? Why shouldn't it?
It seems a bit arbitrary (though not impossible) to assume that the prefix
trick only works for the first and second person. I don't have TKD or KGT
here at my office, so I'm not sure what Okrand explicitly said. And I have
no possibility to search through all sentences where the prefix trick is
applied.
I think it *is* possible with third persons. I don't see a reason to assume
an extra rule that forbids this process for third person indirect objects.
If it *is* possible, then this also explains why {-vaD} isn't needed (see
my English examples, where no 'to' is needed after the dative shift). And
that was my whole point, and my analysis.
And yes, from that I would also conclude that it's possible to say {paqmey
lunob.} in the sense of 'They give the books to him.'
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 2:39 PM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller <esperantist@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>
> 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 tw=
o
> 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...
>
> {-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 li=
ke
> 'to be hot') becomes transitive, a transitive verb like 'to learn' become=
s
> ditransitive. Nothing new here. The new argument introduced, the causer, =
is
> always the new subject. We all agree on that. The former subject is demot=
ed
> to the status of a direct object. That is why we have:
>
> {tul pa'.} =3D 'The room is hot.'
> {pa' tulmoH qul.} =3D 'The fire heats up the room.'
>
> 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.:
>
> {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 [...]'
>
> 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 examp=
le
> in cannon that shows that the new object, the causee, of a causativized
> stative verb (or intransitive verb) is marked by {-vaD}. None.
>
> 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 woul=
d
> then become an indirect object or part of a prepositional phrase, while t=
he
> 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 i=
n
> all Terran languages causatives or case hierarchies work the same. So her=
e
> 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 b=
ut
> we know it's right:
>
> {quHDaj qaw ghaH.} =3D 'He remembers his heritage.'
> {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him of his heritage=
.'
>
> 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:
>
> {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.
>
> {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.
>
> And there is the prefix-trick, linguistically also known as the dative
> shift. So we can form:
>
> {ghaH qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him.'
>
> 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 gav=
e
> me the book.' There is no slot left in this sentence for a {ghaH}, becaus=
e
> 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:
>
> {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.'
>
> 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 direc=
t
> object filling the slot. Hence, I derive:
>
> {wo'rIv qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds Worf.'
>
> Now compare this one to the one where we left out {ghaHvaD}:
>
> {quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds [someone] of his heritage.'
>
> 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:
>
> I teach Klingon to you.
> I teach Klingon.
> I teach to you. >> I teach you.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> {SoHvaD tlhIngan vIghojmoH.}
> {tlhIngan vIghojmoH.}
> {SoHvaD vIghojmoH.} >> {qaghojmoH.}
>
> So there really is no difference between Worf and the room. The differenc=
e
> 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 synt=
ax
> is trivial. {ghoj} is transitive and has a valency of 2, so there the iss=
ue
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> - Andr=C3=A9
>
>
>
>
> 2015-11-23 19:28 GMT+01:00 Will Martin <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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Klingon grammar in most every other area is consistent. When I talk abou=
t
>> messiness, I=E2=80=99m talking about inconsistency. I=E2=80=99m fine wit=
h exceptions, but
>> exceptions to exceptions to exceptions just gets a little too weird for =
me.
>>
>> 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 n=
o
>> reason to expect otherwise.
>>
>> No one has addressed what the difference is between Worf and the room, i=
n
>> 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.
>>
>> pItlh
>> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:58 PM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> ghItlh lojmIt tI'wI'nuv:
>>
>> > And if that=E2=80=99s true for {wo=E2=80=99rIv} in this example, why i=
s it not true for
>> > {pa=E2=80=99} in {pa=E2=80=99 tujmoH qul}? Since {wo=E2=80=99rIv} is t=
he one who is caused to
>> > learn and {pa=E2=80=99} is the thing being caused to be hot, it follow=
s that
>> > {pa=E2=80=99vaD tujmoH qul} should be the right and proper way to writ=
e
>> > =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.
>>
>> 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 ver=
bs
>> 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 t=
o
>> the list of differences.
>>
>> janSIy
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
--001a11c38b5ab2e83c05253add8a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
2015-11-23 21:01 GMT+01:00 Will Martin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com<=
/a>></span>:<br><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:b=
reak-word">I agreed with you up to the point where you suggest that the pre=
fix trick can be used.<div><br></div><div>Note that the prefix trick only w=
orks 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 exp=
licit direct object.<br><div><span class=3D""><br></span></div></div></div>=
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, do we know that it doesn't work =
with third persons? Why shouldn't it? It seems a bit arbitrary (though =
not impossible) to assume that the prefix trick only works for the first an=
d second person. I don't have TKD or KGT here at my office, so I'm =
not sure what Okrand explicitly said. And I have no possibility to search t=
hrough all sentences where the prefix trick is applied.<br><br></div><div>I=
think it *is* possible with third persons. I don't see a reason to ass=
ume an extra rule that forbids this process for third person indirect objec=
ts. If it *is* possible, then this also explains why {-vaD} isn't neede=
d (see my English examples, where no 'to' is needed after the dativ=
e shift). And that was my whole point, and my analysis.<br><br></div><div>A=
nd yes, from that I would also conclude that it's possible to say {paqm=
ey lunob.} in the sense of 'They give the books to him.'<br></div><=
div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:brea=
k-word"><div><div><span class=3D""><div>
<span style=3D"border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvet=
ica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing=
:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-tra=
nsform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div>pItlh</div><div>lojmI=
t tI'wI'nuv</div><div><br></div></span><br>
</div>
<br></span><div><div class=3D"h5"><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On No=
v 23, 2015, at 2:39 PM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller <<a href=3D"mailto:espera=
ntist@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">esperantist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</di=
v><br><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>If I may jump into the heated de=
bate... 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 ru=
les 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 the=
ory to types of sentences for which we already have canon examples, that al=
ready contradict your theory. I'll explain what I mean...<br><br></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 intr=
oduced, the causer, is always the new subject. We all agree on that. The fo=
rmer subject is demoted to the status of a direct object. That is why we ha=
ve:<br><br></div>{tul pa'.} =3D 'The room is hot.'<br></div><di=
v>{pa' tulmoH qul.} =3D 'The fire heats up the room.'<br><br></=
div><div>This simple rule is so basic that no one would have doubts about i=
t. It doesn't even present difficulties to beginners. And it's back=
ed up by dozens of examples from canon, e.g.:<br><br></div><div>{tIjwI'=
ghom vIchenmoH.} =3D 'I form a boarding party.'<br></div><div>{Duj =
ronmoH 'owI'.} =3D 'The pilot banks the vessel.'<br></div><=
div>{yIngaQmoH!} =3D 'Secure him!'<br></div><div>{Hoch qImmoH mu=
9;meyDaj [...]} =3D 'All were bemused by his words [...]'<br><br></=
div><div>The third example, {ngaQ}, is not just intransitive, like the othe=
rs, but also stative, it's one of those adjective-like be-verbs. We hav=
e no example in cannon that shows that the new object, the causee, of a cau=
sativized stative verb (or intransitive verb) is marked by {-vaD}. None.<br=
><br></div><div>When causativizing a transitive verb, the causer becomes th=
e subject. Now, it's reasonable to assume that all the former agents ge=
t demoted, because that is what happens in many Terran languages. The old d=
irect object would then become an indirect object or part of a prepositiona=
l phrase, while the old subject becomes the new direct object: Worf remembe=
rs his heritage. ---> The sash reminds Worf of his heritage. Right? Well=
, in English yes.<br></div><div>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 n=
ew subject, the former subject becomes the indirect object marked with {-va=
D}, the former object remains the direct object. Here are the sentences aga=
in, the first one isn't cannon but we know it's right:<br><br></div=
><div>{quHDaj qaw ghaH.} =3D 'He remembers his heritage.'<br></div>=
<div>{ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him of h=
is heritage.'<br><br></div><div>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 direc=
t object, because that's possible in Klingon. We'd simply understan=
d an implied "it" there:<br><br></div><div>{quHDaj qawmoH Ha'=
quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds [someone] of his heritage.'<br></div><d=
iv>This someone could as well be Riker or Data. Anyone who upon seeing the =
sash thinks: Oh right, yeah, he's Klingon.<br><br></div><div>{ghaHvaD q=
awmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him [of something].'<br></=
div><div>Literally, it makes-remember something to him. It's a vague se=
ntence, 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 i=
t.<br><br></div><div>And there is the prefix-trick, linguistically also kno=
wn as the dative shift. So we can form:<br><br></div><div>{ghaH qawmoH Ha&#=
39;quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds him.'<br></div><div><br>I think, so =
far we've only seen the dative shift work without the former indirect o=
bject 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 / prefi=
x-tricks work with indirect objects that were not overtly mentioned, but im=
plied by the agreement prefix on the verb.<br></div><div>If I'm Worf, t=
hen I could say the following three sentences, in which the role of the pre=
fix shift is clearer:<br><br>{jIHvaD quHwIj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'Th=
e sash reminds me of my heritage.'<br>{jIHvaD qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D &=
#39;The sash reminds me [of it].' (null-prefix meaning 3SG>3SG, here=
)<br></div><div>{muqawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds me.'<b=
r><br></div><div>I think there is no counterevidence that suggests that the=
prefix-trick couldn't work for overt nouns, right? At least, if there&=
#39;s no other direct object filling the slot. Hence, I derive:<br><br></di=
v><div>{wo'rIv qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash reminds Worf.'=
<br><br></div><div>Now compare this one to the one where we left out {ghaHv=
aD}:<br><br></div><div>{quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} =3D 'The sash remind=
s [someone] of his heritage.'<br><br></div><div>They look the same on t=
he surface, structurally. But actually very different things have happened.=
If I could draw syntax trees here, you could see it. For a moment, take th=
e English ditransitive verb "to teach" as a parallel. It works th=
e same:<br><br></div><div>I teach Klingon to you.<br></div><div>I teach Kli=
ngon.<br></div><div>I teach to you. >> I teach you.<br><br></div><div=
>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 Eng=
lish.<br><br></div><div>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 cle=
ar) is the underlying structure that allows us to say:<br><br></div><div>{S=
oHvaD tlhIngan vIghojmoH.}<br></div><div>{tlhIngan vIghojmoH.}<br></div><di=
v>{SoHvaD vIghojmoH.} >> {qaghojmoH.}<br><br></div><div>So there real=
ly is no difference between Worf and the room. The difference lies in the n=
ature (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 d=
oesn't have to follow these rules. It was designed to be inhuman (or le=
t's say: un-English).<br><br></div><div>So, I see no problem here. I ac=
knowledge that it might be a little confusing, but it's no reason to in=
vent 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 clearl=
y not.<br><br></div><div>As for {ja'chuq}, that's a different quest=
ion. I don't have an answer for that yet. I'll have to think about =
it more.<br><br></div><div>- Andr=C3=A9<br></div><div><br><br></div><div><b=
r></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-11-2=
3 19:28 GMT+01:00 Will Martin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:lojmi=
tti7wi7nuv@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com</a>></=
span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word=
"><div>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><br></div><di=
v>As I remember it, these were the words we have had the most experience wi=
th 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 conf=
usion, and controversy ever since.</div><div><br></div><div>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.=
</div><div><br></div><div>Worf and the room have the same semantic and synt=
actic relationship with teaching (causing to learn) and heating (causing to=
be hot) respectively. They should have the same grammar applied to them. O=
krand has given us no reason to expect otherwise.</div><div><br></div><div>=
No one has addressed what the difference is between Worf and the room, in r=
elation 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 i=
n learning has not changed between the two examples.</div><br><div>
<span style=3D"border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:no=
rmal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-heig=
ht:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white=
-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div>pItlh</div><div>lojmIt tI'wI'n=
uv</div><div><br></div></span><br>
</div>
<br><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:58 PM, David=
Holt <<a href=3D"mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com" target=3D"_blank">kenjutsu=
ka@live.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div style=3D"font-style:normal;fo=
nt-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:norm=
al;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;=
word-spacing:0px;font-size:12pt;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-fami=
ly:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><div style=3D"margin-top:0px;margin-=
bottom:0px">ghItlh=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px=
">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv:</span></div><br><div><div><div><div>> And if=
that=E2=80=99s true for {wo=E2=80=99rIv} in this example, why is it not tr=
ue for</div><div>> {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>> learn and {pa=E2=
=80=99} is the thing being caused to be hot, it follows that</div><div>>=
{pa=E2=80=99vaD tujmoH qul} should be the right and proper way to write</d=
iv><div>> =E2=80=9CThe fire heats the room.=E2=80=9D The room is the ben=
eficiary of the</div><div>> heating as much as Worf is the beneficiary o=
f the teaching. Why do</div><div>> we draw a line here? What is the diff=
erence? Nobody has touched</div><div>> this yet, apparently because it i=
s ugly and messy, so those arguing</div><div>> this point just ignore it=
and try to redirect the problem away from</div><div>> facing the gramma=
tical issue at hand.</div><div><br></div></div><div>I do, indeed, hold to t=
he concept that Klingons note a difference in the stative verbs ("be v=
erbs)" and the active verbs=C2=A0and that the stative verbs work diffe=
rently with {-moH} than active verbs do.=C2=A0 It's not the only differ=
ence between the types of verbs, so I am comfortable adding this to the lis=
t of differences.</div><div><br></div><div>janSIy</div></div></div></div><s=
pan style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-va=
riant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;te=
xt-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-=
spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">__________________________=
_____________________</span><br style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12=
px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:=
normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:n=
one;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style=3D"font-family:Helveti=
ca;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;=
letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;t=
ext-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:i=
nline!important">Tlhingan-hol mailing list</span><br style=3D"font-family:H=
elvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:n=
ormal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent=
:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><a href=3D"ma=
ilto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:norma=
l;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;w=
hite-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target=3D"_blank">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org<=
/a><br style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font=
-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal=
;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;wo=
rd-spacing:0px"><a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-ho=
l" style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-var=
iant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;tex=
t-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-s=
pacing:0px" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan=
-hol</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br>____________________________=
___________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" target=3D"_blank">Tlhingan-hol@kli.=
org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</=
a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div><br>____________=
___________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</=
a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--001a11c38b5ab2e83c05253add8a--
--===============4991457555448070383==
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
--===============4991457555448070383==--
