tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 02 15:27:21 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: mu- (was Re: yIHmey)

jatlh ~mark:
> >:{mujang charghwI'}.

> Seems okay to me too, but there is no small amount of stylistic debate over
> it.  peHruS apparently doesn't like it in this usage.  Neither, I believe,
> do charghwI' and SuStel.  I'm not so down on it.
> 
> Actually, I'm not sure this falls into the categories I'm thinking of for
> Sustel's and charghwI''s opinions.  But I can certainly see preferring the
> -vaD method.

No, this is a bit different.  As a verb of saying, I would not be at all 
surprised to learn that the object for {jang} is properly the person being 
spoken to.  It is similar to {ja'} in TKD.  Things like {qaja'pu'} could 
either indicate that the object of {ja'} is the person being spoken to, or it 
could mean that Okrand was using what I call "indirect object shortening" 
(what's the correct term for this?) again.  The definition of {ja'} in TKD 
doesn't help: "tell" could mean either the person being told or the thing 
being told to someone, and "report" seems to restrict it to the thing being 
told to someone.  But Okrand's examples are all showing the object of the verb 
as the person being spoken to.  Ugh!

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97335.9

Back to archive top level