[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[SuStel]

On 7/28/2016 10:41 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
>
> Conversely, 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"?
>

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. If you can't think 
of anything, then you can't add an object. It can't be "self," because 
the suffix *-'egh* already says that.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160728/a95867a6/attachment-0017.htm>