[108294] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] More on {-moH} and tritransitive verbs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ed Bailey)
Thu Dec 8 21:37:52 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <930394817.645525.1481226419546@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:37:48 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=BAnin?= <netzakh@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============1311569005384138193==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b0a7ed28875054330a325
--001a114b0a7ed28875054330a325
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Now I know how many variables I can keep straight when they are represent
words in a sentence. Three.
As for your examples in 3.1 through 3.3, they're all ambiguous. But any one
of them would work if Klingons agreed upon it. Even putting {-vaD} on both
Z and K, if the order of the two had significance. In fact, I'd expect K to
come before Z, as you placed them, since K and Z would be the indirect
object and subject, respectively, of a sentence that omits the role of F.
Two things about 3.4 make it unworkable. First of all, a verb with {-lu'}
lacks a subject, so F can't follow it. Second, according to TKD and all (I
believe, correct me if I'm wrong) canon examples, {-vo'} is only used when
there is actual motion, so it won't work if gift is non-portable, and as
you seem to suspect, wouldn't work with {'ang} or {cha'} anyway, because
they generally don't involve motion away from the subject.
I fail to understand 3.5, but as rants go, it's blessedly short and mild.
~mIp'av
--001a114b0a7ed28875054330a325
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Now I know how many variables I can keep straight whe=
n they are represent words in a sentence. Three.<br><br></div>As for your e=
xamples in 3.1 through 3.3, they're all ambiguous. But any one of them =
would work if Klingons agreed upon it. Even putting {-vaD} on both Z and K,=
if the order of the two had significance. In fact, I'd expect K to com=
e before Z, as you placed them, since K and Z would be the indirect object =
and subject, respectively, of a sentence that omits the role of F.<br><br><=
div>Two things about 3.4 make it unworkable. First of all, a verb with {-lu=
'} lacks a subject, so F can't follow it. Second, according to TKD =
and all (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) canon examples, {-vo'}=
is only used when there is actual motion, so it won't work if gift is =
non-portable, and as you seem to suspect, wouldn't work with {'ang}=
or {cha'} anyway, because they generally don't involve motion away=
from the subject.<br><br></div><div>I fail to understand 3.5, but as rants=
go, it's blessedly short and mild.<br><br>~mIp'av</div><div><br><b=
r>
</div></div>
--001a114b0a7ed28875054330a325--
--===============1311569005384138193==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============1311569005384138193==--
