On Jun 8, 2018, at 20:56, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:

Sorry if I missed it, but have you considered using the word «lIn»? This seems to be the sort of context that it was made for: One where there isn't a provider and a beneficiary, but a set of equal parties: «qo'vam wIlIn.»

You didn’t miss it, as I hadn’t mentioned it, but I chose not to use {lIn} because I wasn’t sure if it could be used with a simple subject (in this case, {maH}, as opposed to, e.g. {vay', latlh je}), and while neither {qo' wIlIn} nor {maHvaD qo' wIbon} quite captured what I was going for, {maHvaD qo' wIbon} seemed closer.

As I mentioned, in this particular case I felt that {HochcaD qo' wIbontaH} better captured what I wanted anyway (as SuStel pointed out, it’s a more inclusive idea), but anyway, i was looking for a more general solution just out of curiosity. I think SuStel’s suggestion of splitting {maH} up and having a B-vaD C bon A 'ej A-vaD C bon B construct when {maH} is something smaller than {Hoch} would probably work for many cases.

That doesn't address the more general issue of how to talk about "each other" as a beneficiary, though.

//loghaD

From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2018 3:32:41 AM
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] “We share with each other” / machqu'bej qo'maj

On 6/8/2018 9:14 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:

Do you see any problem with {HochvaD qo' wIbontaH} as I’ve used it in the reconstructed song?

Just that it doesn't mean share the world with each other, but share the world with everyone, which is a more inclusive idea. It's not automatically the case that maH and Hoch are the same group.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

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