tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 27 22:24:29 2012

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Dhammapada 183

Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh ([email protected])



jatlh Qov:
> What I suppose I meant was, "the lesson learned only gets to be the
> object of the verb because the student is hiding under the -vaD.
> Ordinarily the student should be the object of ghojmoH."

jIjang, jIjatlh:
> That's English talk. :) I'd argue it goes the other way: the student
> can only sneak up the sentence hierarchy to direct object when there's
> no other direct object to block it doing so. A while ago ghunchu'wI'
> suggested it might be a parallel to the prefix trick, which makes some
> sense to me.

mujang Qov, jatlh:
> The verb is {ghojmoH}. ghojlaHbe' paQDI'norgh.

net Sov, but I'm not sure I understand what your point is. I ghoj a
paQDI'norgh, but I can also ghojmoH a paQDI'norgh.

> ghojlaH ghojwI' neH. vaj ghojwI' ghojnISlu'.

ghojnIS*moH*lu', qar'a'?

'ach paQDI'norgh'e', ghojwI'*vaD* 'oH ghojnISmoHlu'. That's what I mean:
when there's a direct object, it stays the same whether the verb has a
-moH or not. My objection is to the idea that "ordinarily the student
should be the object of ghojmoH". I argue that it's not the default,
that the student only gets to be direct object if there's not one there
already.

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol



Back to archive top level