[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[David Holt]

ghItlh lojmIt tI'wI'nuv:

> And if that's true for {wo'rIv} in this example, why is it not true for
> {pa'} in {pa' tujmoH qul}? Since {wo'rIv} is the one who is caused to
> learn and {pa'} is the thing being caused to be hot, it follows that
> {pa'vaD tujmoH qul} should be the right and proper way to write
> "The fire heats the room." The room is the beneficiary of the
> heating as much as Worf is the beneficiary of the teaching. Why do
> we draw a line here? What is the difference? Nobody has touched
> this yet, apparently because it is ugly and messy, so those arguing
> this point just ignore it and try to redirect the problem away from
> facing the grammatical issue at hand.

I do, indeed, hold to the concept that Klingons note a difference in the stative verbs ("be verbs)" and the active verbs and that the stative verbs work differently with {-moH} than active verbs do.  It's not the only difference between the types of verbs, so I am comfortable adding this to the list of differences.

janSIy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151123/0b293ee4/attachment.html>