Am 08.12.2016 um 06:37 schrieb Anthony Appleyard:
*torghvaD taj nob matlh 'e'* (cause) *Quj* , if we had a verb meaning "to cause" ???
I didn't read the rest of this discussion, but when I see you mention "verb meaning to cause" I immeditely think ", well what about {-moH}?" making it two sentences makes it easy: {matlh nobmoH Qugh.} {torghvaD taj nob matlh.} Okay, some may say that's cheating. We have other verbs: {torghvaD taj nob matlh 'e' ra' Qugh} The problem within this topic seems to be the direct and indirect object thing, isn't it? What do you think about: {torghvaD taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh} having {nob} refer to two differetn objects? I'm sure though that the following is grammatically clear: {torghvaD taj nob matlh'e' nobmoHbogh Qugh} taj is the object of the first {nob}, [matlh'e' nobmoHbogh Qugh] is the subject of the phrase, where the second {nob} takes {matlh} as the object. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net