On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Lieven Litaer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012 15:40, schrieb David Trimboli:
>> On 1/24/2012 9:37 AM, Lieven Litaer wrote:
>>>> nuja' tlhIngan wIch ja'wI'pu'
>>>> According to Klingon legend... S8
>
> ghItlh SuStel:
>> That's not a verbal phrase; it's a noun-noun construction.
>
> Yes, that's correct, {wIch} + {ja'wI'}
> But doesn't this {ja'wI'} tell the {wIch} ?
In this example, the {ja'wI} tells {maH}. The first word tells us so.
> {qagh Sop qagh SopwI'} ..
> {wIch ja' wIch ja'wI'} ??
{tuj muv tuj muvwI'} ??
[N V-wI'] isn't the sentence [N V] with a {-wI'} tacked on. I used
to think so, but I've found too little supporting evidence and been
shown too much contrary evidence.
> Or is the thing being told the indirect object?
>
> {lut qaja'}
> "I tell you a story"
That sort of prefix abuse generally has the prefix pointing to the
"indirect object". Your hypothetical example still has {lut} as the
object, something we don't seem to have canon support for.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol