tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 10 21:16:34 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re:
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re:
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 00:18:24 -0500
ghItlh peHruS:
>I see in TKD that {Dung} and {bIng} are DIpmey (nouns). Although there is
>discussion, even in TKD, that {-Daq N5) may be attached to the Object
>Noun--not Locative, mind you-- after such Verbs as {ghoS}, I feel that the
>above sentences make more sense without {-Daq}. Thus, I get: not Dung pum
>'oH/vay' 'ach reH bIng pum.
Whoa! Where have you seen {-Daq} on an object? Except for {-'e'}, a
type 5 suffix on a noun indicates that it is neither subject nor object.
Perhaps you're misreading the examples in TKD 3.3.5 on page 28. We see
{Duj ghoStaH} which has {Duj} as an object, and we see the "somewhat
redundant" {DujDaq ghoStaH} which has no object but does have a locative.
And how do you explain an object on a verb like {pum}? What role does
such an object play in the action?
>Now, this brings up the actual subject of Marc's post. I have left {-lu'}
>off the Verb entirely!!! I have suggested another rather indefinite subject
>{'oH} or {vay'}.
While {'oH} and {vay'} might be *general* subjects, they are still stated,
and thus definite. Even if they aren't stated, they are implied, and they
are still definite. {-lu'} has a special meaning that not only leaves the
subject unstated, but removes the need for a subject altogether.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj