DIS wa’ SanID Hutvatlh SochmaH chorgh yaHwIjDaq wab’a’ vIQoy. wab’a’ Hal vInej. yaHwIj ‘emDaq naghmey lo’taHvIS qachHom’e' chenmoHlu’pu'bogh muppu’ puH Duj. Dujvo’ yIt ‘e’ nID nuv, ‘ach pum. Qamqa’ ‘e’ nID, ‘ej jIjatlh, <<SoH, yIQamQo’! yIba’. maja'chuq.>> qatlh vIra’pu’? ‘uSDaj ghorpu’ba’ mupqu’ghach. yIt ‘e’ nIDDI’, tlhoS jI’em. chach Duj vIloS. QamQo’qa'meH vIyutnIS. wa’ mIn pe’ je. ghaytanHa’ leghqa’laH mInvetlh. chechchu’ba’. jItlhob. <<qatlh naDev SoH?>> jang. <<Suvchuq parmaqqay jIH je. jIQuchHa’choH. jItlhutlh. nom jISeD.>> yInDaj vuvHa’pu’. QIpchu’. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Sep 11, 2021, at 12:52 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/11/2021 10:30 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
I don't remember seeing anything that said joH without the -wI' can't be used in direct address all by itself
Indeed, there's no rule that says that in direct address, {joH} should always be used with a possessive suffix.
But I noticed that in the examples posted by voragh, wherever there's direct address, we have {joHwI'} instead of just {joH}.
If there's a rule at work here, then it's a ridiculous one. There are times one doesn't need, nor is it proper to say {joHwI'}.
I can understand rules which's purpose is to make understanding clearer. But I'm irritated (and that's an understatement) from rules with no apparent purpose. But there's no such rule. You just haven't seen an example that does it. That doesn't mean you can't say it.
I think you're looking for a problem where none exists. If you want to say joH in direct address, go ahead.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org