tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 05 11:54:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- Date: Sat, 5 Jul 97 18:55:04 UT
ghItlh SuStel:
>(According to charghwI''s logical argument, if you HAVE a thing you're
>hearing, it would look like this: {jIHvaD bom yIQoymoH}. It's icky, but he's
>probably right. But when you've got a less-than-explicit object, you don't
>use this sort of thing.)
Perhaps this is not as well understood as I had presumed!
I will revise my interpretation - let's see if I still get it!
>HIQoymoH
>Let me hear (something in general or unspecified).
>
>jIHvaD bom yIQoymoH
>Let me hear the song.
The subject of the verb is always the one causing the new condition (You).
The object of the verb (according to the prefix chosen) is that upon which the
verb acts, unless it is unstated or nonexistent, when one would use the
'agent' which is compelled to act the verb as the object.
The emphasis must be put on 'unstated', as there may be an agent and an
unstated object. You gave me the correction
>choyajmoH
>You make me understand (things in general or unspecified).
which is not really what I was trying to say. I believe my error was in
assuming the object need not be stated if it is clear in context. Therefore,
my *jIHvaD DayajmoH* would appear to translate as "You make it understood for
me." Perhaps it is entirely possible that this is a correct alternative to
direct statement of the obvious object. The syntax used would seem to be
sufficient to make it clear.
puq vIqIp
I hit the child.
vIqIp
I hit (him/her). (object is clear in context)
yaS vIqIpmoH
I cause the officer to hit. (no object being "hit")
yaSvaD puq vIqIpmoH
I cause the hitting of the child for the officer.
?*yaSvaD vIqIpmoH
I cause the hitting (of an understood object) for the officer.
These seem distinct to me. Perhaps we have canon to make the last one clearly
wrong. I await your responses!
Qermaq