tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 14 16:49:17 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: (KLBC) {moj} with 2 objects

jatlh ghaHbe'wI':

> I have one doubt with regard to the verb {moj}-"to become". 
> I've always seen it with just one object, and the actor is 
> the one becomed. Let's see:

> TKD p.22 {yaS vImojpu'} "I became an officer"
>         {yaS DImojpu'} "we became officers"

> TKW p.5 {bogh tlhInganpu', SuvwI'pu' moj, Hegh}
>    "Klingons are born, live as warriors, then die"

> TKW p.177 {wa' jaj 'etlh 'uchchoHlaH tlhIngan puqloD;
>    jajvetlh loD nen moj}
> "the son of a Klingon is a man the day he can first hold a blade"

> In these three examples the subject of the verb is the one who 
> is becomed, so there's no possible confussion. But, what happens 
> when the subject cause something to become into another thing? 
> In this case would appear an actor, the thing becomed from, and 
> the new thing  becomed to. Let's imagine in English:

> "I've caused Lursa to became an actress"
> Subject: I, Object becomed from: Lursa, becomed to: actress

> I would translate it as:
> {DawI'Daq lurSa' vImojmoH}
> Subject: jIH, object becamed from: lurSa', becomed to: DawI'

> I don't even know if this sentence is right! 
> These are just suppositions I do...
> Also, even if it is correct I have another question: the object 
> becomed to must be marked using {-Daq} or {-vaD}? Is the object 
> to become a place to arrive or a beneficiary?

<-Daq> is only used for the physical concepts of motion or location, so it
doesn't work here. <-vaD> has been suggested for this sort of thing, but
there are problems.

> Of course, I've said it before, perhaps all the whole question 
> is a misinterpretation I've done ,or something someone has solved 
> before, but I don't know how to express {moj} as a transitive verb.

You've come across one of the stickier areas of Klingon grammar, and I can't
really give you an answer. The problem is not just <moj>, but any transitive
verb that gets <-moH> added to it.

The following are all simple and uncontroversial:

Sop matlh - Maltz eats.
qagh Sop matlh - Matlz eats qagh.
matlh SopmoH Qugh - Kruge makes Maltz eat.

The problem comes when we want to say "Kruge makes Maltz eat qagh." The
subject is clearly Kruge, but what is the object? Is it Maltz, or is it the
qagh? What gets done with the other one? There are basically two ideas about
this, one suggested by charghwI', and the other by HoD Qanqor. I generally
lean toward Krankor's idea, but neither one is certain enough to reccommend.
If you're interested, look for Krankor's column in HolQeD about three issues
back.

So if we can't use <-moH> in this case, what can we do? Find another way to
say it! In this case, that's not too dificult. To use your example, we could
say:

DawI' moj lurSa' 'e' vIraD - "I compelled Lursa to become an actor".


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm

Back to archive top level