[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
> I’m in the process of being swayed by the “valents” argument, trying
> to sort out the details of it,

Fair enough. Goodness knows examples of causatives at all are relatively few in canon, so working out how to apply them isn't easy to begin with. All I know is that my explanation seems to be internally consistent with canon, but if there's a counterexample I've ignored that defies this explanation, then for sure, a new (or refined) explanation needs to be sought.

Tangentially, I want to make it clear that my using terms to do with verbal valency (i.e. monovalent, bivalent, etc.) isn't to exoticise these ideas, but simply has to do with me trying to avoid the loaded terminology surrounding "transitive" and "intransitive", which have been critiqued on the list before.

taH:
> but I’ll point out that applying these ideas to {ja’} might be a poor
> choice if it’s being used as a verb of speech for direct quotation
> purposes, since that’s a special case with unusual grammar.

That's a fair point as well; {ja'} does do things a little differently and using it as a standard example may be problematic.

QeS 'utlh 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151125/71fe38ce/attachment.html>