tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 01 16:49:49 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: A -moH suggestion
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: A -moH suggestion
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:49:48 GMT
qavuvchu' 'ach maQoch.
While it is possible for the "prefix shortcut" to be used when the indirect
object is first or second person and the direct object is third person, that
has nothing to do with the subject. When you use {-moH}, the subject is the
agent of causation, not the agent of the action of the verb root.
Your first example is fine, but the second one is definitely controversial if
not simply wrong.
jatlh Qov:
> muleghmoHlaH Hergh
{Hergh} is the subject. The direct object is first person singular. No problem.
> and
> qaleghmoHlaH Hergh
The subject in the prefix {qa-} of this second example is apparently first
person singular, but what is {Hergh} doing there?
There's nothing in canon to suggest this is okay. The only way I know how to
say "The medicine causes me to be able to see you," is:
muleghmoHlaHmo' Hergh qalegh.
"I see you because the medicine makes me able to see."
> which introduces the new problem (new to this particular posting, not new
> to Klingonists) of whether muleghmoHlaH means "enables me to see" or "has
> the ability to make me see."
Yep. That is a problem. There is the temptation to believe that it definitely
means "is able to make me see" because of the way that true floaters modify
what preceeds them and extend that to other suffixes, but because of the
inflexibility of the order of normal suffixes, that's not the case.
There is no easy way to disambiguate these two meanings for this one sentence.
There is no easy recasting for the two different meanings, unless someone else
thinks of something I don't see.
> Now I will go away.
'e' vItulHa'.
charghwI'