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

[SuStel]

On 4/22/2016 12:33 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:37 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>> There's no rule that says you can't put an object in front of Qong.
> TKD 4.1.1. "Basic prefixes" doesn't state it as an actual rule, but it
> does list only no-object prefixes as the ones that can go on {Qong},
> and it then says such prefixes are also used when an object is
> possible but not made explicit. I believe that means that an object is
> *not* possible for {Qong}. I can accept that others can find
> justification not to read it that way, though.

First the no-object pronomial prefixes are introduced, then "The verb 
*Qong* /sleep/ occurs with the pronomial prefixes as follows..."

Nothing about that seems restrictive to me; *Qong* is just a 
conveniently familiar verb to demonstrate no-object prefixes on. Whether 
or not *Qong* CAN take objects is not addressed at all, or even hinted 
at. The example sentences simply have no objects.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160422/e2edb083/attachment-0001.html>