[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[Rhona Fenwick]

jIjatlhpu' jIH:

> if the bare verb was univalent to begin with (i.e. couldn't normally take

> an object, like {Qong}, {QaQ}), then the derivative with {-'eghmoH}

> probably cannot take an object either. How would one shoehorn an

> explicit object into, say, {bel'eghmoH} "please oneself"?


mujangpu' SuStel, jatlh:

> It's not a question of valency, it's a question of syntactic roles. What is

> having something done to it? That's your object.


I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. The two agreement slots of a verb (and thus its valency) correspond to the syntactic roles of subject and object in any case. All I'm getting at is that the way {-'egh} and {-moH} together affect the structure of verb agreement (and therefore syntactic roles) should imply that if you can't add an object to a bare verb {X}, you probably can't add one to the verb {X-'eghmoH} either. Do you disagree?


QeS 'utlh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160728/f7ac4f69/attachment.htm>