[tlhIngan Hol] chevchuqmoH

[Daniel Dadap]

On Mar 5, 2019, at 09:14, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

>> I think it could be meaningful in the same way {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} is. {qeylIS} is the singular subject of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuqmey} are the plural object of {muvchuqmoH} which makes them into the plural subject of {muvchuq}.
> Here we go again. In mayqel's proposed sentence, tlhInganpu' and romuluSnganpu' are not the subjects of anything. qeylIS is the only subject anywhere. tlhInganpu' and romuluSnganpu' might be considered as entities that perform chevchuq, but the verb isn't chevchuq, it's chevchuqmoH.
> 

But how is this different from the {muvchuqmoH} example I cited above? {qeylIS} is the only subject in that sentence as well, and clearly he can’t {-chuq} all on his own in that sentence, either.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190305/3b723573/attachment-0016.htm>