tulwI''s "case" proposal (Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e')

[Qov <qov@direct.ca>]

lab Holtej:

>* tlheD DujDaq
>* tlheD Dujmo'
>* tlheD DujvaD
>* tlheD Dujvo'
>* tlheD wa'Hu'
>
>(For the {-mo'} example, this is grammatical if you understand it to mean 
>{tlheD ghaH, Dujmo'}, but not if you assume that {Duj} is the subject of 
>{tlheD}. For the {wa'Hu'} example, {wa'Hu'} cannot act as a time-stamp, as 
>I showed above.)

As an annotation to Holtej's post, -mo' would be legal in the second 
example only if Duj were a verb.  See near the end of TKD 6.1.

/tlheD wa'Hu'/ is a legal sentence if interpreted as "yesterday left" but 
it would never mean "he left yesterday."

Qov