[tlhIngan Hol] ck tnk je {mej} lo' vs qepHom 2019 {mej} De'

[SuStel]

On 10/22/2020 8:46 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>
> jatlh ck: ghorgh mamej?
>
> 'ej jatlh tnk: DaH jImej.
>
>
> 'a qaStaHvIS qepHom 2019, maghojpu': < Daq 'oH {mej} 'ovmay'e'. >
>
>
> vaj (qepHom 2019 De'mo'), {ghorgh *pI*/*re*/*wI*/DI*mej} 'oHnISpu' ck 
> mu'tlhegh'e', 'ej {DaH *vI*/*qa*/*Sa*mej} ' oHnISpu' tnk mu'tlhegh'e'.
>
>
> ck tnk je {mej} lo' tlhochba' qepHom 2019 {mej} De'.
>
Taking a certain kind of object doesn't mean a verb HAS to have an 
object. It just means that an object is possible, and this is what it is.

When you leave off an object where an object is possible, the object is 
interpreted as unknown or vague. "Thus, *jIyaj*/I understand/ can be 
used when the speaker understands things in general, knows what is going 
on, or understands what another speaker has just said."

So it is with *mej.* If you have no object, the object is unknown or 
vague. *DaH jImej* doesn't specify the place you're leaving because it 
doesn't need to: context makes it clear that it refers to wherever you 
currently are. But you could, if you wanted to, be less vague: *DaH 
pa'vam vImej*/I will leave this room now./

P.S.: Don't say *'oHnISpu'.* You're not talking about a completed 
needing to be; you're talking about a past needing to be that is 
indistinct in its duration and ending. Say *'oHnIS.*

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20201022/960f6f27/attachment-0015.htm>