tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 27 05:52:42 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
• Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:52:10 EDT

In a message dated 10/26/2006 8:56:04 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> ja' lay'tel SIvten:
> > The only objects of {ghaj} I found are: batleH, joQ, tlham, nIn,  
> > Hov, pegh,
> > De' pegh, pIch, and butlh.  The word {HoSghaj} implies that {HoS}  
> > may have been
> > an object.  While some of these objects are abstract (pIch, pegh,  
> > De' pegh,
> > tlham, ?HoS), none is an event.
> 
> Nor are any a food, or a vehicle, or a person.  I don't see that as a  
> reason to restrict us from saying {be'nI' vIghaj} or {chatlh  
> vIghaj}.  What about an event would disqualify it from being the  
> object of a verb?
> 
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> 

Food, vehicles, and people are all concrete and thus irrelevant to a 
discussion about abstract objects.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
  • Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
• Next by Date: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
• Previous by thread: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level