tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 02 22:44:02 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'

charghwI' writes:
>So far, we only know how to use {-moH} on intransitive verbs.
>We get very confused when we throw an object on a verb with
>{-moH}. The grammar doesn't follow rules we currently have.

I know what you mean:

{SuD HIq} "The liquor is green."  maj.
{tlhutlh yaS} "The officer drinks."  maj.
{HIq vISuDmoH} "I cause the liquor to be green."  maj.
{yaS vItlhutlhmoH} "I cause the officer to drink."  maj.
{HIq tlhutlh yaS} "The officer drinks the liquor."  maj.
{??? vItlhutlhmoH} "I cause the officer to drink the liquor."  jor jay'!

The closest I get using {tlhutlhmoH} is {yaSvaD HIq vItlhutlhmoH}, but
that's not very close at all.  The original direct object shouldn't become
indirect when the second object appears, and I don't really mean "I caused
the liquor to drink for the benefit of the officer."

{HIq tlhutlh yaS 'e' vIqaSmoH} works perfectly by sidestepping the whole
"transitive verb with {-moH}" issue.

>Given that {lo'moHlaH} could ONLY mean, "cause to be valuable",
>since the subject does the causing and the object is the thing
>which becomes valuable. "Cause to be able to use" doesn't work
>because the subject does the causing, the object acquires the
>ability to use and we have no hole left in the grammar in which
>to place whatever it is that the object is supposed to gain the
>ability to use.
>
>Dayaj'a'?

HIja'.  'ach wej jIQochbe'.
You're right, {lo'moHlaH} COULD mean "cause to be valuable."  The
two-object problem keeps us from translating it as "cause to be able to
use", but that doesn't mean it MUST have a valid translation.  I'm probably
relying far too much on the suffix order, but I have a very difficult time
accepting "out-of-order" translations.  Meanwhile, {lo'laH 'oH 'e' qaSmoH
ghaH} is available.  It trades decreased brevity for increased clarity.

 -- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level