[102647] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Sat Nov 28 09:05:59 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:05:40 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmP55a4ADm+uZmsEF3PumgsMyCjbE-rDgOJF+jYwr=T_iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============4216979457607680804==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_bc61416f-a0d1-48aa-a3b8-3acf4c44ae22_"
--_bc61416f-a0d1-48aa-a3b8-3acf4c44ae22_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI'=2C jatlhpu':
> 1) I believe {SeymoH QeH} is a counterexample.
jangpu' janSIy=2C jatlhpu':
> chay'! Not so much a counter example=2C as an example from completely
> outside the realm of my considerations. So perhaps we can also say
> things like=2C {DoqmoH rItlhvam} "this paint reddens=2C" {ghungmoH mI'}
> "dancing makes you hungry=2C"
Arr=2C I only just realised=2C janSIy: there's no noun with this meaning th=
at we know of. {mI'} means "number".
jIjangpu' je jIH=2C jIjatlh:
> Absolutely so. Remember also {HeghmoH}=2C glossed explicitly in TKD
> (p.88) as "be fatal". Literally=2C this would be "cause (things in genera=
l)
> to die"=2C so we should be perfectly capable of saying things like {pIj
> HeghmoH ropvam} "this disease is often fatal".
jang je De'vID=2C jatlh:
> All monovalent verbs=2C though. Any evidence for or against=2C e.g.=2C
> {SopmoH lop} "the celebration causes eating"=2C or {SuvmoH SoQ} "the
> speech causes fighting"?
Any notionally bivalent verb can be used syntactically as a monovalent verb=
with the appropriate pronominal prefixes and no further modification (TKD =
pp. 33-34)=2C so why not?
QeS 'utlh =
--_bc61416f-a0d1-48aa-a3b8-3acf4c44ae22_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
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' ghunchu'wI'=2C jatlhpu=
':<br>>=3B 1) I believe {SeymoH QeH} is a counterexample.<br><br>jangpu' =
janSIy=2C jatlhpu':<br>>=3B chay'! Not so much a counter example=2C as an=
example from completely<br>>=3B outside the realm of my considerations. =
So perhaps we can also say<br>>=3B things like=2C {DoqmoH rItlhvam} "this=
paint reddens=2C" {ghungmoH mI'}<br>>=3B "dancing makes you hungry=2C"<b=
r><br>Arr=2C I only just realised=2C janSIy: there's no noun with this mean=
ing that we know of. {mI'} means "number".<br><br>jIjangpu' je jIH=2C jIjat=
lh:<br>>=3B Absolutely so. Remember also {HeghmoH}=2C glossed explicitly =
in TKD<br>>=3B (p.88) as "be fatal". Literally=2C this would be "cause (t=
hings in general)<br>>=3B to die"=2C so we should be perfectly capable of=
saying things like {pIj<br>>=3B HeghmoH ropvam} "this disease is often f=
atal".<br><br>jang je De'vID=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B All monovalent verbs=2C th=
ough. Any evidence for or against=2C e.g.=2C<br>>=3B {SopmoH lop} "the ce=
lebration causes eating"=2C or {SuvmoH SoQ} "the<br>>=3B speech causes fi=
ghting"?<br><br>Any notionally bivalent verb can be used syntactically as a=
monovalent verb with the appropriate pronominal prefixes and no further mo=
dification (TKD pp. 33-34)=2C so why not?<br><br>QeS 'utlh </div=
></body>
</html>=
--_bc61416f-a0d1-48aa-a3b8-3acf4c44ae22_--
--===============4216979457607680804==
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
--===============4216979457607680804==--
