[tlhIngan Hol] thoughts on lIn and bon

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Thu Feb 11 06:52:34 PST 2021

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 14:06, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> During the qepHom of 2016 we were told..
> ­­­---begin quote­­­---
> When A and B share something with each other (share some {gagh}, say), the
> verb to use is {lIn} ("share") and the construction is {C lulIn A B je} (or
> {C lIn A B je} if C is plural, and, again, with appropriate verb prefixes).
> In this case, the speaker is noncommittal about whether A or B is the one
> who decided to do the sharing with the other.
> ---end quote­­­---
> Is this the only way we can use {lIn}? Suppose I write:
> lIrDajvaD qagh lIn SuvwI'
> the warrior shares the qagh with his owl
> Would it be acceptable ?

We're only told that the subject of {lIn} is the parties involved in
sharing. If it's not plural, I would understand that as some of the sharers
being unspecified. So I'd read this as "the warrior shares the gagh (with
an unspecified party) for his owl" (his owl benefits in some way, but isn't
a sharer).

The known grammar is: {C [lu]lIn A B je} for "A and B share C with each
other" (where it's not stated whether A or B initiated the sharing). We
don't know what {-vaD} would mean.

Moving on.. There's something which seems strange with the {bon}. According
> to matlh:
> ---begin quote­­­---
> When A shares something (C) with B, the verb to use is {bon} ("share
> with") and the construction is B­vaD C {bon} A (with appropriate verb
> prefixes depending on what A and C are). In this case, C belongs to or is
> controlled by A and A chooses to share it with B.
> ---end quote­­­---
> The translation of the construction B­vaD C {bon} A is rather strange.
> Example:
> lIrDajvaD qagh bon SuvwI'
> the warrior shares with the qagh for his owl

Why is this strange? It's strange only because you've translated {-vaD} as
"for" rather than as "with" in English. This sentence means "the warrior
shares the qagh with his owl". (Even though TKD translates {-vaD} as "for",
it explains that it marks the beneficiary of the action. Clearly, the owl
is the beneficiary of the sharing if the gagh is shared with it.)

The known grammar is {B-vaD C bon A} for "A shares C with B" (where C
belongs to A and A is choosing to share with B). Here, {-vaD} marks the
party which is being shared with. The gloss "share with" just indicates
that someone has chosen to "share with" someone else (in contrast to the
gloss "share" for {lIn}, where all parties are sharing).

> I can't understand this. I can understand the {lIrDaj bon SuvwI'} "the
> warrior shares with his owl" (something unspecified),

No, this means "the warrior shares his owl with (an unspecified party)".

> but the {lIrDajvaD qagh bon SuvwI'} is rather strange. Unless of course
> it's one of those "because matlh says so" times.

This seems like a pretty standard use of {-vaD} to me.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210211/0ff9f6a8/attachment-0005.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list