tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 24 15:11:45 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tam naDev...
From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> Note: I used /wIghoHmeH/ instead of /maghoHmeH/ because I think the
> English clause "to argue" actually has an implied object of 'it' (in this
> case, 'something new')... Another way to look at the English would be if
> it was "Do we need to have a new topic so that we can dispute it (that
> topic)?" I think the use of /wI-/ is justified since I have a specific
> object for the dispute implied through context... Maybe this is something
> to discuss? ;)
Yeah, sure. I don't think that being able to imply an object through
context allows you to give a verb an object. Some verbs don't take objects,
and other verbs take specific objects. There's probably an exact answer for
the verb /ghoH/ that we don't know.
Personally, I don't think that /ghoH/ takes an object. Instead of */'oH
wIghoH/, say /'oHmoH maghoH/.
SuStel
Stardate 3312.3