tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 22 16:54:43 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: agentive -wI'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: agentive -wI'
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:54:38 EST
Lawrence wrote:
>tagha' bI'ang'egh choHoHwI'wI'. jIHeghlI' 'a HIvje'lIj tar vIlanta'. ghIq
>qaHoHwI'lI' jIH.
>
>Finally the "you-kill-me"-er reveals himself. I am dying, but I put poison
>in your glass. Thus, I am your "I-kill-you"-er.
Will wrote (not in direct response):
>A {bomwI'} is a singer. Not a song singer. That would be a {bom bomwI'}.
>One who conquers it/him/her/them would be {'oH/ghaH/ghaH/chaH charghwI'}.
Then would you say this is correct:
tagha' 'ang'egh jIH HoHwI'.
Finally, he who kills me reveals himself.
If it isn't correct, why not? If {HoHwI'} can have a third-person object, as
it apparently can, why not first or second person?
And if it is correct, why? Why not {jIH muHoHwI'} or just {muHoHwI'}?
Wouldn't those be the same thing?
I hope this isn't taken as confrontational or stupid. This debate is going
over my head somewhat; I'm just trying to figure it out.
-Sengval