[102628] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Holt)
Fri Nov 27 02:32:41 2015
From: David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:32:22 +0000
In-Reply-To: <DED937CC-82F5-4E56-970B-9D5B2B7FC300@alcaco.net>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
> 1) I believe {SeymoH QeH} is a counterexample.
chay'! Not so much a counter example, as an example from completely outside the realm of my considerations. So perhaps we can also say things like, {DoqmoH rItlhvam} "this paint reddens," {ghungmoH mI'} "dancing makes you hungry," {bommoH QoQ} "music causes singing," etc. I like it, but I'll have to let this sink in more.
> 2) You state your opinion as if composing a {-moH} sentence is a process that goes through a non-moH phase along the way. I don't agree with that view.
Not really a phase, but rather a necessary component. It's not necessary that one first create the underlying root sentence, but rather that such an underlying root sentence would, of necessity, be able to exist. The example sentence you provided above certainly seems to contradict that idea, since there is no way to create the underlying root sentence of, "one is excited." My first inclination is to accept it as a weak counter example, since it is presented to us as a proverb and proverbs can sometimes break the rules as we know them. However, if it is a productive pattern, as I suggest above, then I admit that I might have to rethink my concept.
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
