tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 14 09:23:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Lachrimosa?
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Lachrimosa?
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 97 11:12:27 EST
ja' peHruS:
>RE: 'ach SoQbogh tlhIngan DaSumchugh yIyepqu'
>[...]
>This form appears to be a contradiction to discussions regarding verbs
>glossed by MO with "be......". The discussions have indicated to me that we
>could not have an Object after such verbs, unless we put the suffix {-moH}
>onto the verb stem, causing the action to shift to that Object.
I've wondered about the correct way to use {Sum} and {Hop} myself. It
seems to me that the safest usage would be to have their subjects be
the things that are nearby or faraway from one another. I tend to use
them this way, and I also treat {rap} and {pIm} similarly.
>But, we know we can use the construction of {matay'taHvIS}. This leads me to
>believe we could also say {Sumchuqchugh SoQbogh tlhIngan SoH je vaj
>yIyepqu'}.
Saying {Sumchuq} doesn't avoid the problem you're complaining about.
If you object to an object on a "stative" verb, then you should also
object to putting an {-egh} or {-chuq} suffix on it.
I'd word it this way: {'ach SuSum SoQbogh tlhIngan SoH je yIyepqu'}
(remember that if "you" are one of the subjects, the whole verb needs
a "plural you" prefix).
-- ghunchu'wI'