I may be making a generous interpretation for the sake of consistency, but I do think that there is a certain logic to this: Clouds don't just produce rain; they become the rain, or at least parts of them do. Similarly, the blood of the soldiers is both the source and the emanation. However, unlike the case with clouds and rain, we tend not to use different words to distinguish between blood coursing through a person's veins and blood flying through the air, so "the soldiers' blood" fits as both the subject or the object. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 1:47:18 PM To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] object of the verb {SIS} At/in klingonska we read: http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-05-28-email.txt ---------- SIS. In a way everyone was correct with this one. It rained a few times during the weekend, so we were put into the situation to discuss it. SIS SISqu' SIStaH SISchoH All correct. SISlu', altho grammaticlly correct, he didn't particularly like. Someone COULD use it but to me it sounds like they skipped science class and don't know what the subject is. You can also give it an object and say things like the clouds rained down cats and dogs. ...or something like that; you get the idea. But when Marc and I went outside and drops of water were falling on us, he looked up and simply said "SIS". ---------- But at/in the paq'batlh we read: {ghIq QavwI'chaj DuQchu' qeylIS betleH chaHDaq SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw} "Then Kahless's bat'leth pierced the last of them, showered with the soldiers' blood". Why is the {negh 'Iw} the subject of {SIStaHvIS}? Shouldn't it be its' object? Shouldn't we have instead {negh 'Iw SIStaHvIS}? ~ Dana'an _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org