[86555] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Relative clause in a relative clause
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Fri Sep 18 20:15:24 2009
In-Reply-To: <c4e.599d0584.37e5302d@wmconnect.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 02:11:55 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
You're right, it can't. {-chuq} is a suffix that increases the verb's
valency. I have 3 canon phrases, and it's always intransitive. Also,
Okrand somewhere said that verbs with {-chuq} receive the
single-argument subject pronouns.
- André
2009/9/18 <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>:
> In a message dated 9/18/2009 13:49:15 Eastern Daylight Time,
> qurgh@wizage.net writes:
>
>> HoHbogh tlhIngan luja'chuq. HoHbogh tlhIngan vISov
>> They discuses the Klingon that died. I know the Klingon that died.
>>
>> qurgh
>>
>
> Can {ja'chuq} take an object? I thought not, since {-chuq} implies the
> object and subject are the same (each other, actually).
>
> lay'tel SIvten
>
>
>
>
