tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 30 22:15:42 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mujatlhmoH nuq jay'
- From: Topic Goran <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: mujatlhmoH nuq jay'
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 18:15:47 METDST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Will Martin" at Mar 31, 94 10:32 am
- Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
> to say that biology causes us to talk. In this case, though, I think maybe it
> DOES make sense to use {-'e'}:
>
> nujatlhmoH yInQeD'e'
I like these solutions. But, what is the difference between the statement
above and
nujatlhmoH yInQeD?
(Sorry for asking silly questions, but I really can't figure it out.)
> I'm not sure about that prefix because of the weirdness of {-moH}, but I
> think it is right. "It causes to talk us". This is much like {qaghojmoH},
> meaning "I teach you," though it is litterally, "I cause to learn you." We do
> not try to place "you" as the subject of "learn", even though you are. "I" am
> the subject of the causation, not the learning. I think that is the general
> pattern.
Yeah, it would be my guess, too. So, would my sentence be: nujatlhmoH Hol'e'?
Or is it maybe OK to write nuja'chuqmoH Hol'e', since the object of the verb
ja'chuqmoH is really the *subject* of the ja'chuq, and object is null?
(The language makes us discuss. No object on 'discuss').
> This is a change from my earlier post. I thought it out more and think
> this interpretation of the wonder of {-moH} better fits canon.
>
> charghwI'
qoran