[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI', jatlhpu':
> 1) I believe {SeymoH QeH} is a counterexample.

jangpu' janSIy, jatlhpu':
> chay'! Not so much a counter example, as an example from completely
> outside the realm of my considerations. So perhaps we can also say
> things like, {DoqmoH rItlhvam} "this paint reddens," {ghungmoH mI'}
> "dancing makes you hungry,"

Arr, I only just realised, janSIy: there's no noun with this meaning that we know of. {mI'} means "number".

jIjangpu' je jIH, jIjatlh:
> Absolutely so. Remember also {HeghmoH}, glossed explicitly in TKD
> (p.88) as "be fatal". Literally, this would be "cause (things in general)
> to die", so we should be perfectly capable of saying things like {pIj
> HeghmoH ropvam} "this disease is often fatal".

jang je De'vID, jatlh:
> All monovalent verbs, though. Any evidence for or against, e.g.,
> {SopmoH lop} "the celebration causes eating", or {SuvmoH SoQ} "the
> speech causes fighting"?

Any notionally bivalent verb can be used syntactically as a monovalent verb with the appropriate pronominal prefixes and no further modification (TKD pp. 33-34), so why not?

QeS 'utlh 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151129/4e2e4856/attachment-0001.html>