<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><span></span></div><div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div dir="ltr">On Apr 16, 2019, at 2:31 PM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">In a sentence without <b>-moH,</b> the situation is very simple.
The subject is always the agent/theme/experiencer. Easy.</div></blockquote><br><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">“Easy”? You’re introducing terms that you seem to think are widely understood, but your use of them doesn’t give much information about what you mean. From your earlier attempts to explain your understanding of Klingon grammar, I </span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">was under the impression that agents and experiencers were different things, and I thought themes were something else as well. Searching the web, I find lists of noun roles that include those terms, and nowhere do I see them equated.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I still don’t understand the problem you have with calling the thing that causes the action the “subject of causation”. You tried to correct it by saying that “the subject causes”. What’s the line you are drawing between them?</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span><div dir="ltr"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">-- ghunchu'wI'</span></div></div></div></body></html>