[tlhIngan Hol] {mej} with and without {-vo'}

[D qunen'oS]

Ok, charghwI', thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I decided that until we get any further clarification (yeah right, as if
that's ever gonna happen..), I'll be applying to {tlheD} too all this crap
which goes for {mej} regarding its' use with or without the {-vo'}. And the
reason I came to this decision is because that's how I like it. Charming
isn't it?

Also, reading the original post, I noticed this Ca'Non sentence:

{lojmItmeyvo’ Damejta’}

This sentence shows that a {-vo'}ed noun *can* be the object of a verb,
something which -for reasons I don't know- I was under the impression that
wasn't possible. Perhaps because I could never come up with an example
where it would be necessary for a {-vo'}ed noun to be the object of a verb.
Who knows? Go figure.

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220525/97e6432b/attachment-0015.htm>