[102633] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Fri Nov 27 11:36:51 2015
In-Reply-To: <BAY179-W3500F4CEB2E993235547A1AA030@phx.gbl>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 17:36:33 +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
On 27 November 2015 at 13:13, Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI', jatlhpu':
>> 1) I believe {SeymoH QeH} is a counterexample.
>
> jang janSIy, jatlh:
>> 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.
QeS 'utlh:
> Absolutely so. Remember also {HeghmoH}, glossed explicitly in TKD (p.88) as
> "be fatal". Literally, this would be "cause (things in general) to die", so
> we should be perfectly capable of saying things like {pIj HeghmoH ropvam}
> "this disease is often fatal".
All monovalent verbs, though. Any evidence for or against, e.g.,
{SopmoH lop} "the celebration causes eating", or {SuvmoH SoQ} "the
speech causes fighting"?
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
