[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

I don't remember the setting. Likely others were present. Okrand told the story of how {lo'laH} became a separate verb from {lo+laH}, meaning "be valuable" instead of "He can use it". He said that he found that he had used it adjectivally, and given the choice between allowing all adjectives to use {-laH} or making {lo'laH} a separate root verb, he chose the latter. He didn't mention where he had used {lo'laH} adjectivally. It could have, theoretically, been in a line in a movie that was cut, or otherwise been something he had done that never made it to publication. I don't know. But it was something that he considered to be something that, at the time, he couldn't be rid of.

This was very early. Maybe even qep'a' wa'DIch.

The only time I've ever met him alone was for the interview in HolQeD, and the only time I've talked to him on the phone or exchanged email with him was relating to the episode surrounding the word {meqleH}. I never felt like it was appropriate for me to seek personal access to him outside of qep'a' except for those two episodes.

I'm really bad at remembering "when" and "where" something happens in my life, though I have uncommonly good memory for certain kinds of details. In this case, I remember his voice explaining this. Since it has nothing to do with {meqleH}, it was either during the interview or during a qep'a'. Since your research points to this being very early, likely it was during one of the earliest qep'a'mey.

Sent from my iPad
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv

> On Nov 25, 2015, at 7:12 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> In case you don’t know the history of {lo’laH}, Okrand mistakenly used it
>> adjectivally when {-laH} is not a suffix one can use on a verb adjectivally.
>> It was a mistake. But it was canon. So Okrand had to declare that {lo’laH}
>> is a different verb than {lo’}. So, while {pab vIlo’laH} (I can use grammar)
>> is an example of the root verb {lo’} with {laH} added, {pIj lo’laH nuH} (A
>> weapon is often valuable) is an example of a different verb, yielding such
>> lovely sentences as {nuH lo’laH lo’laH.} “He can use a valuable weapon.”
> 
> Where and when did he make this mistake? What is the canon sentence in
> which {lo'laH} appears with the meaning "be valuable"?
> 
> I had considered that {lo'laH} might have been a retrofit for an
> error, but I don't recall ever having seen any firm evidence that this
> is true.
> 
> Also, mistakenly using {lo'laH} as an adjective is a weird mistake to
> make (which isn't to say it couldn't have happened), since {lo'} means
> "use", not "be used". {Doch lo'laH} where {lo'} + {-laH} is used
> adjectivally wouldn't mean "useful thing, thing which can-be-used", it
> would mean "thing which-can-use" (if it means anything at all).
> 
> I would've thought that it came about because an actor/actress swapped
> two words, e.g., {Doch lo'laH} "he can use it" became {lo'laH Doch},
> which had to be retroactively explained as "the thing is valuable".
> 
> In TKD itself, {vIlo'laHbe'} appears as an example for rovers, and is
> glossed as "they are useless to me, I cannot use them". {lo'laH} and
> {lo'laHbe'} appear as "be valuable" and "be worthless" in the word
> lists. So, whatever the error was, it had been made by the time TKD
> (1st edition) was published.
> 
> The Addendum to TKD gives {lo'laHghach} for "value" and
> {lo'laHbe'ghach} for "worthlessness" in the section for type 9 verb
> suffixes and the word lists.
> 
> Then {lo'laHbe'} was subsequently used in these canon sources:
> {leghlaHchu'be'chugh mIn lo'laHbe' taj jej.} TKW
> {lo'laHbe'; chetvI' chIm rur} KGT
> 
> -- 
> De'vID
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol