[Tlhingan-hol] Because you mentioned it (Was: Expressing instrumentality)

[Rhona Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
> This is why I hate this construction. You, SuStel, and I don’t seem to be
> able to agree on what it means,

Understandable. I suppose the thing I find really difficult about your hatred of the construction, and your desire to avoid it absent further clarification, is that I honestly don't see how the canon could indicate that any other interpretation is possible, or how another interpretation could be cleanly reconciled with the S20 example.

taH:
> So, help me out here. If I want to say “Krankor taught Seqram the Klingon
> language,” should I say, {tlhIngan HolvaD Seqram ghojmoHta' Qanqor} or
> should I say, {SeqramvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoHta’ HoD Qanqor.}

I think it should be the latter: {SeqramvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoHta' HoD Qanqor}. It parallels the S20 example really neatly: the agent causing the learning/remembering is the subject, the topic learned/remembered is the direct object, and the person learning/remembering is the indirect object.

QeS 'utlh 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160422/b342dafe/attachment.html>