[tlhIngan Hol] does someone vor a disease or a person ?

[Will Martin]

You’ve hit the biggest problem with the glosses in the word list. We are left to watch canon and otherwise make assumptions about what objects are appropriate for any given verb. Usually it matches English, but not always. Many people have read the gloss for {vIH} and assumed that it takes an object, when we learned years after TKD was published that if A moves B, the verb is {vIHmoH}.

So, if we can’t always tell whether a verb takes an object at all, how are we supposed to know which objects are appropriate for each verb? We usually don’t. We guess.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Aug 4, 2020, at 8:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> All these years I took for granted, that the object of vor can be
> either the patient or the disease.
> 
> But only recently I realized, that in the Ca'Non example of {Hoch vor
> Dargh wIb} the translation is given as "sour tea cures everything",
> and not as "sour tea cures everyone" (with the "everyone" referring to
> patients).
> 
> So one *could* wonder whether we could indeed use the {vor} to say
> things like {nuv rop vorta' Qel} "the doctor cured the patient".
> 
> ~ Qa'yIn
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200804/7867dd3e/attachment.htm>