ja*

[Andrew Strader <strader@decode.is>]

>In this specific case, though, there's another problem. Despite the 
>definition 
>gloss "tell", we know that <lut ja'be'lu'. lut jatlhlu'. nuv ja'lu'.>

Ah yes. You have a good point there. In the known canonical examples the 
object of ja' (if it has one) is always an interlocutor. The direct object of 
jatlh is always either a language or an utterance. Notable, however, is that 
ja' also has the gloss "report", which is precisely what one does to a story 
and not to a interlocutor. Anyway, that was my thot process on the matter, 
but you may be right about ja', considering known canon.

-- 
Andrew Strader