<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/2/2020 11:47 PM, Alan Anderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E7D6BA9A-A458-4B68-B8BA-354D4C6E08B3@alcaco.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">On Sep 2, 2020, at 7:16 PM, SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name"><sustel@trimboli.name></a> wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p>If you want to distinguish speaking targets from body-part
targets from other targets, you need to do so by
description. The grammar won't do it for you.</p>
<p><b>ray'lIj 'oH ghotvetlh'e'. ray'Daq yIbach!</b></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The grammar of that sentence is doing it just fine. It is
clearly indicating, in multiple ways, that the target is not a
being capable of speech. It is very jarring for me to see {ghot}
as the subject of such a sentence.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It’s also weird to try to reconcile the singular pronoun with
the claimed implication that it refers to a plural entity, but
inherent plurals are weird in general when one tries to mix them
with explicitly plural ideas.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>My mistake, I should have written <b>ray' ghaH ghotvetlh'e'.</b>
The grammar of THAT sentence is doing it just fine, but that's the
sentence that's there purely to explain that the target is a being
capable of using language. I added it specifically BECAUSE the
grammar of that sentence shows the gender. My point is that you
can't try to say something like <b>ray'Daq yIbach</b> and add
grammar like <b>-pu'</b> simply to show the gender of the noun.</p>
<p>As for using a singular pronoun with an inherently plural noun
representing beings capable of using language, we just got
confirmation by Okrand that this is the case. Said by De'vID in a
message on August 16, "I'm working with Dr. Okrand on a 2nd
edition of the paq'batlh and can confirm that the correct pronoun
for {negh} is {ghaH}. (Incorrect uses of {chaH} and verb prefixes
which incorrectly treated {negh} as grammatically plural will be
corrected in the 2nd ed.)"</p>
<p>I don't remember whether we have evidence that the pronoun of a
"to be" sentence is based on the first noun or the topic noun, but
I believe it needs to be the first noun, not the topic noun. We're
talking about those people. <b>ray' ghaH</b><i> they're the
targets.</i> Who are the targets? <b>ghotvetlh'e'. </b>On the
other hand, in a sentence like <b>pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e',</b>
the pronoun is based on the topic noun, although "to be" sentences
with locatives seem to work a little differently than others. So
if it has to be <b>ray'lI' chaH ghotvetlh'e',</b> that's fine; it
doesn't change the point of my post.<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>