tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 03 06:02:34 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: vay' and lu'
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 9:02:31 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "David E G Sturm" at Jan 2, 95 3:53 pm
According to David E G Sturm:
>
> > > > > paq vIlaD I read the/a book
> > > > > paq vIlaDlu' s.o reads the book/the book is read
> > > > > paq vIlaDqang I am willing to read the book
> > > > > paq vIlaDqanglu' s.o. is willing to read the book
> > > > > *the book is willing to be read
> > > According to janSIy:
> > > > The vI- should not be on the second and third sentences, right?
> > On Mon, 26 Dec 1994, charghwI' wrote:
> > > Ummm. Make that second and FOURTH.
>
> Wouldn't sentence 2 be: s.o. reads me the book.
> sentence 4 be: s.o. is willing to read me the book.
Hmm. Good point. Because of the English definition given, I was
thrown by that one. While I've never seen the prefix point to
an indirect object in a {-lu'} construction before, that
doesn't mean it wouldn't work.
Thanks,
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |