tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 07 16:32:05 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qum
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Qum
> Based solely on these two examples, one could argue that {Qum} describes
an
> activity such as "sleep", which doesn't take an object in either
> language. We need more examples before we can make a determination
whether
> {Qum} is transitive.
Voragh, reH De' law', De' Daj je Daghaj.
So if we only consider examples from canon, {vIQum} is incorrect, and
{ghaHvaD Qum} is correct, right? Or can the {ghaHvaD} clause only represent
an indirect object in this type of construction? (It follows that in order
to have an indirect object, one must first have an object, right?).
This is getting complicated. I think I'll stick with {Qum ghaH} }}: )
--ngabwI'
HovpoH 699640.1