daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Tue Jan 24 11:57:46 2012
From: ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F1EC838.2090002@web.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:56:34 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer@web.de> wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012 15:40, schrieb David Trimboli:
>> On 1/24/2012 9:37 AM, Lieven Litaer wrote:
>>>> nuja' tlhIngan wIch ja'wI'pu'
>>>> According to Klingon legend... S8
>
> ghItlh SuStel:
>> That's not a verbal phrase; it's a noun-noun construction.
>
> Yes, that's correct, {wIch} + {ja'wI'}
> But doesn't this {ja'wI'} tell the {wIch} ?
In this example, the {ja'wI} tells {maH}. The first word tells us so.
> {qagh Sop qagh SopwI'} ..
> {wIch ja' wIch ja'wI'} ??
{tuj muv tuj muvwI'} ??
[N V-wI'] isn't the sentence [N V] with a {-wI'} tacked on. I used to think so, but I've found too little supporting evidence and been shown too much contrary evidence.
> Or is the thing being told the indirect object?
>
> {lut qaja'}
> "I tell you a story"
That sort of prefix abuse generally has the prefix pointing to the "indirect object". Your hypothetical example still has {lut} as the object, something we don't seem to have canon support for.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
