While I agree with both of you, looking at the two canon examples, it follows that the other way to say exactly the same thing would be: SuvwI’vamvaD DunwI’ vIDam. After all, an {‘urwI’} is just one who {‘ur}s, just as a {DunwI’} is one who is {Dun}. charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Apr 30, 2021, at 9:00 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 4/30/2021 7:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

...

{Dam} lubopbogh cha' Ca'Non mu'tlhegh tu'lu':

HumanvaD 'urwI' wIDam we treat the human as a traitor

'urwI' ghaH 'e' vIDam I consider him (to be) a traitor

cha' mu'tlheghvam DInuDchugh, vaj matlhoj: DIp ('urwI') lo' Hoch mu'tlheghvam. 'a mu'tlheghDaq DIp tu'lu'be'chugh, 'ej wot tu'lu'chugh, vaj jaSHa' {Dam} lo'laH'a' nuv?

jIqon:

Dun SuvwI'vam 'e' vIDam I consider this warrior to be great

lugh'a' {Dam} lo'vam?

Think of Dam as meaning SUBJECT considers SOMEONE/SOMETHING to be OBJECT. Exactly how that someone or something is identified depends on how you construct the sentence. In HumanvaD 'urwI' wIDam, you're using an indirect object to say We (subject) consider the human (someone) to be a traitor (object). In 'urwI' ghaH 'e' vIDam, you're using a separate sentence to identify whom you're talking about, saying I (subject) consider him (someone) to be-traitor (object).

So apply this same idea to your proposed sentence: I (subject) consider this warrior (someone) to be-wonderful. It follows the same pattern. It works.

-- 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