[102590] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Wed Nov 25 06:32:51 2015
In-Reply-To: <E58A6547-D23B-4B40-9D06-9D321A80E463@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:32:33 +0100
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
bI'reng:
>> 12. QeD vIghojmoH.
>> [...]
>> But if one of those arguments is unstated, perhaps we can apply either
>> pattern (iv), as in sentence 11, or pattern (v), as in sentence 12,
>> with the implied {-vaD} argument left unspoken.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> I follow you right up to the very end. You mention an implied {-vaD}. Does
> that suggest that an explicit {-vaD} would also be correct? If not, why not?
He's not saying that the {-vaD} is implied (i.e., on {QeD}). He's
saying that the argument with {-vaD} (i.e., {puqvaD}) is implied.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
