[112053] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] chevchuqmoH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Dadap)
Tue Mar 5 10:04:09 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 09:03:56 -0600
In-Reply-To: <d72f3a3d-11c3-d109-784f-3bf4140a6018@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@scanner01.mail.supportedns.com
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============3072880414918699208==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-45C18887-C2EC-4764-A69C-AFD2926E010C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--Apple-Mail-45C18887-C2EC-4764-A69C-AFD2926E010C
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 08:56, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
>> On 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> If we say:
>>=20
>> {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
>>=20
> I don't think the sentence is meaningful. -chuq means the subject is plura=
l and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work for the object.
>=20
But the {-moH} is important here. If the object of a {-moH}ed verb can be th=
e subject of the action being {moH}ed, I think it could be meaningful in the=
same way {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} is. {qeylIS} is the singular sub=
ject of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuqmey} are the plural object of {muvchuqmoH} whi=
ch makes them into the plural subject of {muvchuq}.
> tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je chev qeylIS
> Kahless separates the Klingons and the Romulans.
>=20
That=E2=80=99s obviously a more sensible way to say the first meaning, but I=
still think the question is a valid one.=
--Apple-Mail-45C18887-C2EC-4764-A69C-AFD2926E010C
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"ltr"></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br=
></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br>On Mar 5, 2019, at 08:56, SuStel <<a href=3D"=
mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br><br></di=
v><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr">
=20
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF-8"=
>
=20
=20
<div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:CAP7F2cKcPbbJp_FfetzOTR=3D-KU3mvRZ=
TO1ho70hB7_j6ZMHUXw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class=3D"moz-quote-pre" wrap=3D"">If we say:
{tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
</pre></blockquote><p>I don't think the sentence is meaningful. <b>-chuq</b>=
means the
subject is plural and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work
for the object.</p>
<p></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But the {-moH} is importan=
t here. If the object of a {-moH}ed verb can be the subject of the action be=
ing {moH}ed, I think it could be meaningful in the same way {<span style=3D"=
background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} i=
s. {qeylIS} is the singular subject of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuq</span><span st=
yle=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">mey} are the plural object=
of {muvchuqmoH} which makes them into the plural subject of {muvchuq}.</spa=
n></div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><p><b>tlhInganpu' rom=
uluSnganpu' je chev qeylIS</b><i><br>
Kahless separates the Klingons and the Romulans.</i><br></p></div></=
blockquote><div><br></div><div>That=E2=80=99s obviously a more sensible way t=
o say the first meaning, but I still think the question is a valid one.</div=
></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-45C18887-C2EC-4764-A69C-AFD2926E010C--
--===============3072880414918699208==
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
--===============3072880414918699208==--
