[102584] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Tue Nov 24 22:45:40 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 13:45:24 +1000
In-Reply-To: <B97B97D7-C14F-477E-B3A4-AA24556E7FCC@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============0320071110948885960==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_b436daf6-8e83-40f2-8bd4-bcec942a6c73_"
--_b436daf6-8e83-40f2-8bd4-bcec942a6c73_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C jatlh:
> I=92m in the process of being swayed by the =93valents=94 argument=2C try=
ing
> to sort out the details of it=2C
Fair enough. Goodness knows examples of causatives at all are relatively fe=
w in canon=2C so working out how to apply them isn't easy to begin with. Al=
l I know is that my explanation seems to be internally consistent with cano=
n=2C but if there's a counterexample I've ignored that defies this explanat=
ion=2C then for sure=2C a new (or refined) explanation needs to be sought.
Tangentially=2C I want to make it clear that my using terms to do with verb=
al valency (i.e. monovalent=2C bivalent=2C etc.) isn't to exoticise these i=
deas=2C but simply has to do with me trying to avoid the loaded terminology=
surrounding "transitive" and "intransitive"=2C which have been critiqued o=
n the list before.
taH:
> but I=92ll point out that applying these ideas to {ja=92} might be a poor
> choice if it=92s being used as a verb of speech for direct quotation
> purposes=2C since that=92s a special case with unusual grammar.
That's a fair point as well=3B {ja'} does do things a little differently an=
d using it as a standard example may be problematic.
QeS 'utlh =
--_b436daf6-8e83-40f2-8bd4-bcec942a6c73_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C j=
atlh:<br>>=3B I=92m in the process of being swayed by the =93valents=94 a=
rgument=2C trying<br>>=3B to sort out the details of it=2C<br><br>Fair en=
ough. Goodness knows examples of causatives at all are relatively few in ca=
non=2C so working out how to apply them isn't easy to begin with. All I kno=
w is that my explanation seems to be internally consistent with canon=2C bu=
t if there's a counterexample I've ignored that defies this explanation=2C =
then for sure=2C a new (or refined) explanation needs to be sought.<br><br>=
Tangentially=2C I want to make it clear that my using terms to do with verb=
al valency (i.e. monovalent=2C bivalent=2C etc.) isn't to exoticise these i=
deas=2C but simply has to do with me trying to avoid the loaded terminology=
surrounding "transitive" and "intransitive"=2C which have been critiqued o=
n the list before.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B but I=92ll point out that applying=
these ideas to {ja=92} might be a poor<br>>=3B choice if it=92s being us=
ed as a verb of speech for direct quotation<br>>=3B purposes=2C since tha=
t=92s a special case with unusual grammar.<br><br>That's a fair point as we=
ll=3B {ja'} does do things a little differently and using it as a standard =
example may be problematic.<br><br>QeS 'utlh </div></body>
</html>=
--_b436daf6-8e83-40f2-8bd4-bcec942a6c73_--
--===============0320071110948885960==
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
--===============0320071110948885960==--
