tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 08 11:47:56 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghuHmoH
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ghuHmoH
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 14:47:45 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marc Paige" at Jul 7, 97 09:00:37 am
According to Marc Paige:
> ja' charghwI'
> >>>
> The grammar progression goes like this:
> bIlegh. "You see."
> yIH Dalegh. "You see the tribble."
> qaleghmoH. "I cause you to see."
> SoHvaD yIH vIleghmoH. "I cause you to see the tribble."
> It doesn't look right, but it is...
> <<<
>
> What about the recent posting from MSN that talks about the indirect
> object? Does that allow us to use:
>
> yIH DaleghmoH
>
> It would seem that this is allowed.
If what you are trying to say is, "You caused the tribble to
see," then it is allowable. If you wanted to say, "I cause you
to see the tribble," then with Marc's post about indirect
objects, you could say, {yIH qaleghmoH.} In your example, there
is no disagreement in person between the explicit object and
the prefix. Your second person reference is the SUBJECT, not
the OBJECT, which does not make your example fit Okrand's
reference.
> ---------------
> SI'IluD
> wa'Hu' jIboghbe'
charghwI'