[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wejmaH wej: <qama' mIwmey>

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

jIjatlhpu':
> context of carpet-laying (a carpet or rug is said to {vel} the floor, so
> I guess a person {velmoH}s the rug)

mujang Quvar:
> No, the person uses the carpet to {vel} the floor.

>From Marc's email it's clear that the carpet {vel}s the floor. If someone
*causes* the carpet to {vel} the floor, can they not be said to {velmoH} the
carpet to the floor, using an ordinary causative? It's not the strictly
idiomatic canon way of using it, I know, but it still obeys all the grammar.

> Hm... if you {velmoH} the carpet, it sound like harry potter who is
> cursing the carpet to fly around and then cover the floor.

Harry Potter magically causing the carpet to cover the floor isn't different
to making the carpet cover the floor in an ordinary mundane way. They're just
two different means of achieving the same action, aren't they?

> mInDu'lIj vIvel jIH. bIH vIvelmeH ghopwIj vIlo'.

Given the example of {rav vel tlhIm}, I'd have thought {bIH velmeH} "in order
that they [my hands] cover them" would be better.


({velwI'} is really doing my head in. Everything else Marc says in his email


indicates that the subject of {vel} is a thing; a covering or carpet or rug.


There's no other evidence that a person can {vel} anything - unless their


body is the actual floor covering: {rav vIvel} "my body covers the floor"??


- and even in the part about {velwI'} Marc strongly implies that the usual


subject of {vel} is the thing used to cover another thing.)







QeS 'utlh