<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/4/2017 2:38 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e7526966-7e15-ad93-c7d6-58b85a4606bc@gmx.de">Am
04.10.2017 um 20:26 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">It's too bad
you're not going to reply, because I'd LOVE to know why you
think Okrand went out of his way, twice in that article, to
separate first- and second-person objects from third-person
objects, but he REALLY meant that ANY objects can do this.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Because in the third person, this becomes ambiguous:
<br>
{ghIch qanob} can only be "I give you the nose"
<br>
{ghIch vInob} can be both be "it" and "him".
<br>
<br>
But that does not mean that it's not correct to do.
<br>
<br>
I am glad you chose that example, by the way. You say {Soj DInob}
can only mean "we give foods", but that's indeed nonsense, even in
English. Context makes clear it's "we give them food".
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><i>We give foods</i> is perfectly reasonable in English. <i>Foods</i>
means different kinds of food, each considered separately. If we
give foods, then maybe we give apples and corn and bread and
cheese. All of these could be described as a single mass, <i>food,</i>
but if we consider each separately, they are <i>foods.</i> Here
are two examples I just got off of dictionary.com: <i>Breakfast
foods have become very popular; </i>Fare <i>refers to the
whole range of foods that may nourish a person or animal.</i><br>
</p>
<p>Is <b>Soj</b> only a mass-noun in Klingon? I dunno. But you
can't make the argument by appealing to it being one in English,
because it isn't exclusively one.</p>
<p>As for context, the example was given without any.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e7526966-7e15-ad93-c7d6-58b85a4606bc@gmx.de">
I'd like to point at the end of the message:
<br>
<br>
"I realize that this answer [...] is not by any means a complete
discussion of the several topics mentioned and I may have phrased
things not as clearly as they might be phrased. As a result, this
answer may end up just raising other questions."
<br>
<br>
But - again - we cannot solve this ourselves without imput from
Maltz.</blockquote>
<p>If we cannot solve this ourselves without input from Maltz, then
how do you justify using it in the transcript and calling it
correct? At the very best you can say (with very silly reasoning)
that we don't know if you can do it, because Okrand didn't address
using prefixes for third-person objects. At the very best. But
you're defending it as if it never even occurred to you that
there's any question about the prefix trick in the third person.</p>
<p>And "I may have phrased things not as clearly as they might be
phrased" certainly aligns with my claim that saying "it doesn't
work in the third person" might very well mean "One day someone
might come up with a very silly interpretation of what I'm saying
here because I wasn't as explicit as he wanted."</p>
<p>But again, I'll consider any explanation you might have, and
still have not offered, as to why Okrand went out of his way twice
to separate first- and second-person objects from third-person
objects.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>