On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
From: Lieven L. Litaer
>>   Am 10.09.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Steven Boozer:
> (qurgh, 11/10/2015):  I had a conversation with Marc about {'oH} and {ghaH}
> and animals when I was at the qepHom. He said that if you (the speaker) believe
> you can communicate with a creature, then it's a {ghaH}, if you don't believe you
> can communicate with a creature, then it's {'oH}. It's down the personal beliefs
> of the speaker, not a set formula.
>
>> Just for the record:  When Voragh quotes "qepHom YYYY" he usually means the
>> "qepHom in Germany YYYY". But qurgh never was at that qepHom, so he probably
>>  means a diferent one. (or it was a different person?)

When I wrote "(qurgh, 11/10/2015)" it meant that qurgh posted the following statement to this list on November 10, 2015.  Whether qurgh's statement is true or not - i.e. which qepHom he was referring to - I have no way of knowing.  If I mis-quote someone or confuse the source, I always appreciate corrections.

I've had a few conversations with Marc about this kind of stuff over the years, at both the qep'a' and at various qepHommey we both happen to be at. I don't remember which one this specific conversation happened at, and I don't believe my statement should be taken as grammatical canon, but more a statement on how individuals use the language.

It's my belief that the use of {-wI'} over {-wIj}, {ghaH} over {'oH}, etc says much more about the speaker's relationship with the object in question than it does about the object itself. I don't believe there is an objective list somewhere that says "X get's this suffix, Y get's this suffix". It's all subjective. There is no right or wrong, there is only the successful, or unsuccessful, transfer of ideas and concepts from one individual to the next.

qurgh