tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 20 21:20:29 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: A -moH suggestion
ja' SuStel:
>There's absolutely no funny business going on here. It's all by the book,
>no additional grammar necessary.
I would be happy to agree, were it not for the {Ha'quj} sentence. You seem
willing to dismiss it as a valid example of usage. I'd rather use it as a
window into the way Klingon grammar works when {-moH} appears on a verb
which already has an object.
>Again, just look at basics, and stop
>trying to leap about the root verb.
I'm unable to grasp those two commands simultaneously. The root verb *is*
the basis for the sentence, is it not? I think it's a lot more basic to
treat the verb suffix {-moH} as a modifier than to grok it as creating a
new concept.
>There are no issues of ditransitivity
>at all if you look at verb+moH as just another verb.
I *can* look at it that way, but it seems so much simpler not to. The
{Ha'quj} example presents us with a perfectly adequate resolution to the
ditransitivity issue which agrees completely with the way a similar issue
was resolved with {pong}.
>Yes, Verb+moH really
>IS Verb+moH, but the CONCEPT of Verb+moH is different than the concept of
>Verb, and th concept of Verb+moH is a single entity.
maQoch. I just don't get the feeling that {-moH} manages to meld with the
verb to make a new concept.
***
'ej, rInDI' Hoch, ram. majatlh 'e' wImevbe'. mayajchuq 'e' wImevbe'.
maghoH 'e' wItaHmoHchugh, potlh wIta'be'. chaq ghojwI'pu' DItungmo', DaH
jIngach 'e' vImev.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh