tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 11:09:47 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:09:42 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <l0302090ab2ff5a6d6adc@[206.150.220.154]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:31:32 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> [tIqwIjvaD qaDuQmoH - "I cause my heart to stab you"]
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >But your alternate interpretation has no prior example
> >justifying it that I know of. You seem to be ignoring the {-vaD}
> >and pretending like the {qa-} is an example of the prefix
> >shortcut so that the implied object "you" is an indirect object.
> >That would give you two indirect objects and no direct object.
>
> Does there have to be a specific prior example of something that is
> explained by the description of grammar in TKD? If the verb were
> something intransitive like {qet} or {Dugh}, the *only* reasonable
> interpretation is "I cause you to [do something] for my heart". Or
> would you also consider that to be an example of multiple indirect
> objects?
The whole point of this grammar is to deal with transitive verbs
with {-moH} added. It is a different grammar from that used on
intransitive verbs. I know that you like the idea that all the
older examples using intransitive verbs are examples of the
prefix shortcut, but that doesn't really work because the prefix
trick only works with prefixes indicating first or second person
objects, and examples abound of third person objects of
intransitive verbs plus {-moH}.
Look at {bIQ vItujmoH.} Do you want to suggest that is not
valid? Do you want to suggest that it is an example of a prefix
shortcut pointing to an indirect object?
The grammar changes when the verb is transitive or intransitive.
Deal with it.
If you think otherwise, explain yourself better.
> One of the reasons I think {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} works as clearly as
> it does is that "heritage" can't really remember something, so there's
> no reason to consider the alternate (and older) interpretation.
The "older" interpretation was OUR interpretation, not HIS,
unless you are talking about INTRANSITIVE verbs plus {-moH}.
There are no "older" examples of Okrand using it the other way.
As far as I'm concerned, unless Okrand shows us otherwise, the
"old" interpretation refers only to intransitive verbs and and
when we deal with transitive verbs plus {-moH}, we need to
accept the new grammar and move on. Tying it back to the
intransitive examples doesn't quite work.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI' 'utlh