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.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org