[86648] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The meaning of -moH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Fri Oct 9 07:35:10 2009
In-Reply-To: <998850.16341.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:33:30 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Oct 8, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
> --- On Thu, 10/8/09, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>
>> Overall, I agree with the point: there is some evidence that
>> syntactic
>> differences exist among verbs, though the evidence is not
>> conclusive, or
>> even necessarily convincing. If true, verbs may fall into one of
>> three
>> classes: verbs of action that can take objects; verbs of action that
>> cannot take objects; and verbs of quality, which cannot take objects.
Very well said! I fully appreciate the restrictive ("that" without
comma) vs. nonrestrictive ("which" with comma) clauses you used there.
> Really, just two classes: one in which the subject performs the
> action on an object, and one in which the subject experiences the
> action or the quality of the verb.
This is a case where the distinction between semantics and syntax can
be clear. SuStel is talking about syntax, which is all about how a
verb fits into a sentence with other words without regard for what
the subject and object are actually doing or experiencing. You're
focusing on semantics, which considers the roles of subject and
object (and perhaps other entities) in the action or state described
by the verb.
-- ghunchu'wI'
