Thank you both De'vID and SuStel for your replies, and apologies for taking a while to get back to you. So as I understand the most correct way in those cases can be summarized as below: < Subject 1> causes <Subject 2> to <verb> <direct object> becomes < Subject 2>-vaD <direct object> <verb>-moH < Subject 1> If there is an indirect object as well as a direct object, is there already an established way to say it? For example: The Captain made the prisoner give the knife to the officer Do we just get 2 nouns with -vaD suffix ? yaSvaD qama'vaD taj nobmoH HoD or is it safer to work around the problem as below: qama’ raDmo’ HoD, yaSvaD taj nob qama’ 2017-09-15 15:26 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 9/15/2017 5:18 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
I have been wondering about how to perfectly convey sentences where there seems to be 2 subjects, such as "She made you wait for us" and just came up with an idea that I wanted to discuss with you: using < ... ’e’ qaSmoH >
For instance: juloS ’e’ qaSmoH
Literally: She caused it to happen that you waited for us
Or, for the example from last month (they made the dog enter the cage: DogvaD mo’ lu’elmoH): mo’ ’el dog ’e’ luqaSmoH
When you think about it, in "She made you wait for us", the subject is "she" but the object is not "you", it is the action/event "you wait for us" taken as a whole, thus <... ’e’ qaSmoH > seems a logical way to phrase it.
What do you think ? Has it maybe been discussed already ?
Sure, people have been using *'e' qaSmoH* forever. It was one of the primary ways of getting around the "ditransitive" issue before we had examples and confirmation. You're reconstructing it from the other direction.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org