[tlhIngan Hol] DSC Klingon Trailer transcription (NOT offlist)

[SuStel]

On 10/4/2017 6:17 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 3:32 PM, SuStel<sustel at trimboli.name>  wrote:
>> If they're allowed at all, there HAVE to be special circumstances, some special explanation that makes them stand apart from the first- and second-person prefixes, and you have no idea what that explanation might be.
> *I*  have an idea what that explanation might be. It generalizes the prefix trick to explain things like {tuQmoH} and other uses of {-moH} on already transitive verbs. All it says is that when the prefix appears to violate the rule of {rom}, it could be pointing to the "indirect object" beneficiary instead of the (direct) object. Usually the beneficiary is implied by the prefix and the object is explicit, but I also consider cases where the normal object is missing and the grammatical beneficiary can be stated in its place

Yes, this is Lieven's explanation as well. That Okrand has never said. 
Which means when he said "When the indirect object... is first or second 
person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second 
person object may be used," he really meant "When the indirect object... 
is a pronoun, the pronominal prefix may agree with that pronoun instead 
of the direct object." There is no distinction whatsoever between 
person. All pronouns may be prefix tricked. So why did he specify first 
and second person pronouns? Twice? Why were all his examples in that 
message only first and second person? And with different numbers? The 
original question only asked for second person.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171004/8e80b54c/attachment-0016.htm>