[tlhIngan Hol] Joining two questions with {pagh}

Daniel Dadap daniel at dadap.net
Tue Jan 29 08:23:14 PST 2019



> On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:14, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> This flexibility of objects is why you can simultaneously have qaja'pu' I told you and lut vIja'pu' I told the story. In the first case there's no direct object to get in the way of the indirect object being the syntactic object of the verb. In the second the verb has an explicit direct object. If you wanted to say whom you told the story to, you would say puqvaD lut vIja'. This isn't even a -moH issue. Both direct and indirect objects can go in the object position, but if you have both the direct object wins and the indirect object goes to -vaD.

Interesting analysis. I actually like this as an explanation for the prefix trick as well. You have two objects as well, but since the indirect object is indicated by the prefix, neither needs to take -vaD, although the unstated (because it’s encoded in the prefix) object is the one that normally would. It’s similar to your example of qaja'pu' which has an “indirect” object only, except with an explicit “direct” object as well.

For transitive verbs with -moH I’m still trying to wrap my head around exactly what’s happening there (e.g. puqvaD nIQ vISopmoH) but I’m happy to handwave it away with “objects are flexible” magic dust for now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190129/986501b3/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list