Re: chenmoH/mojmoH (was Re: Klingon WOTD: cho' (verb))

[MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com]

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 11/5/2005 7:27:39 PM Central Standard Time, 
scarter@hticn.com writes:


> Until new canon shows otherwise, I'll assume
> that {moj} is used only with people, and that {mojmoH} isn't
> synonymous with {chenmoH}, but may be synonymous with pronoun +
> {-choH}.
> 
> 
> -- Stephen Carter
>    scarter@hticn.com


Wouldn't they have different usages?  The subject and object of {mojmoH} 
would be person A causing person B to become (thing/person C (e.g., position, 
title)), whereas the subject and 'object' (it's not really an object) of pronoun + 
{-choH} would be person B who becomes/starts to be thing/person C.  In the 
former there is no indication of what B becomes, while in the latter there is no 
distinct agent responsible for the change.

lay'tel SIvten