<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 9/7/2018 5:49 PM, Daniel Dadap
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B9B9D5F8-160A-4704-8AA8-2F4778840308@dadap.net">
<pre wrap="">I had always thought that the distinction between {'oH} and {ghaH} was the same as the distinction between {bIH} and {chaH}, i.e., that {ghaH} is reserved for beings capable of language. It would seem natural that the singular and plural third-person pronouns would be divided up the same way, but it was recently pointed out to me that TKD never actually says that {‘oH} is for things and beings that are incapable of languages, or that {ghaH} is exclusively for language-capable beings. But just because that would seem natural doesn’t mean that it is so.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It's an interesting observation. If correct, what's the
difference between <b>ghaH</b> and <b>'oH?<br>
</b></p>
<p>To support the idea, you need to find somewhere in canon that
uses <b>ghaH</b> or <b>'oH</b> in a way that shows that
difference: some being capable of using language being referred to
as <b>'oH,</b> or something not a being capable of using language
being referred to as <b>ghaH.</b></p>
<p>Personally, I think Okrand just assumed that the difference
between <i>it</i> and <i>he/she/him/her</i> showed up the
difference well enough. It's the fact that English <i>they/them</i>
can cover plural <i>it</i> as well as <i>he/she/him/her</i> that
warrants special mention of the difference between <b>bIH</b> and
<b>chaH,</b> not the exclusivity of the capable-of-using-language
status of the words.<br>
<b></b></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>