tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 25 21:16:49 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC pong (v)
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC pong (v)
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 00:17:27 -0500
jIghItlh 'ej ghItlh Qov:
>}Here (and not being sanctioned by the Linguist's Guild, I'm out on a
>}limb...) "call me" (in the sense of "label me") is V+O. "Ishmael" is the
>}label. I'm not sure of the precise grammatical construction, but this
>}sentence isn't equivalent to the others.
>
>I'm not going to take your word for it.
And you are wise! Since Voragh provided the one canon for <pong> (v), I see
that the name is indeed used as the object of <pong>. What is named is a
<-vaD>-marked noun preceding the verb phrase. Still, "call" isn't defined as
"use the name ---" in my dictionary - you know the feeling! {:o) (chaq
maHvaD mu'ghommey chu' je'laH charghwI'!)
In a previous post I set up a parallel with the <-moH> construction. On
second thought, I think that might not be the best way to characterize the
situation. Really, <'oHvaD juHqo' ponglu'> and <HoDvaD De' vIqawmeH> and
<maHvaD mu'ghommey je'laH> are simply examples of how to properly use
<-vaD>. The "beneficiary" is not the performer of the verb (in the <-meH>
sentences, it is only because of another subject's effect) nor is it the
object of the verb. In the <pong> and the <je'> sentences, it's who/what the
subject acts the verb to the object for. In the <qawmeH> sentence, it's
similar, but the beneficiary is an intermediate in the acting of the verb
upon the object - it is a tool to the end, an "agent" in the action.
Funny how something can seem so clear to me but defy easy explanation...
Qermaq