[tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions

nIqolay Q niqolay0 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 5 15:50:02 PDT 2017

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it the *-qang* suffix that's the problem, then?
> Does *yaSvaD taj nobqang qama' *not have an indirect object now, because
> the giving is only potential and might not actually happen?
> And would *bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHta' *now have an indirect
> object, because the killing has happened in reality and my beloved (the
> "you" being addressed) has received some sign of devotion from that?
> In* bangwI',* *SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang*, are the warriors not
> really a direct object, because they only exist hypothetically and
> therefore nothing is directly happening to them? Am I not a subject because
> I haven't actually done any killing yet? Where's the dividing line between
> semantic and syntactic role here?

> In any case, I'm not sure this discussion is going to get anywhere just
> relying on our own interpretations of Okrand's use of terminology, since we
> don't accept each other's interpretations.

I have just realized that it's not very honorable to say that I don't think
the discussion can get anywhere, while forgetting to remove the questions
intended to inspire further discussion. You don't have to answer those.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171005/c8deaff2/attachment-0005.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list