tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 26 02:30:54 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
In a message dated 3/21/1999 10:17:52 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< You even tried to say that the prefix ju- didn't
indicate subject-object and that in the phrase "Dalegh" that there was no
subject. bInuQ; ghIlab ghew Darur. >>
==================
nepwI' DaDaba'. not jIjatlhpu', *subject-object ngu'be' moHaq {ju-}.
jIjatlhpu', *subject-object 'oSbe' moHaq {ju-}. rapbe' *subject, pronominal
prefix je.
I sure did say that the prefix indicates the subject and/or object. I merely
stated that the prefix does not equate to being the subject and/or object. I
pointed out that TKD uses numbers (1-9) to "indicate" verb suffixes. Those
numbers are not the suffixes, only indicators of the suffixes.
I can tell that you folks are bothered by discussion which is intended to help
us all reach the truth. Some of you just jump at conclusions and do not want
discussion. What if I keep a list of when we KLI members have had to adjust
our use of tlhIngan Hol because we found out from MO that we had not
determined the right usages? Why bother? You don't want to know when shallow
conclusions have been wrong.
peHruS