tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 31 12:05:33 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: mujatlhmoH nuq jay'



ghItlh charghwI':
>     So how do I say, "I caused you to hit him,"? Umm. Well. You don't. Umm,
>you might say that I ORDERED you to hit him, which is accurate and easy to
>say with ye olde sentence-as-object construction. Meanwhile, I can say that
I
>cause you to be angry, but I can't say that I cause you to hit him. If I
took
>what I interpret to be Krankor's view on this, I might say 
>{chaH qaqIpmoHta'}. Note: I do not represent Krankor here. He speaks for
>himself quite well. I'm just trying to understand one of his recent posts.

Ok. Krankor and Nick don't hate each other, nobody's taking sides of any
sort. Everything's cool! No one has to talk as if a war were brewing. The
condition out here on the list is all hunky-dorry (sp?). OK?! Ok.

Anyhoo- {chaH qaqIpmoHta'} for "I cause you to hit them." indeed has merit.
But I myself might like that particular construction better if it were
{SoHvaD chaH vIqIpmoHta'}. I'm not the expert. Consult ~mark on this sort of
construction in Hebrew, or one of the Esperantists around here (and I know
you must be here somewhere!).

In both of these languages, when an already transitive verb is transitized,
the subject of the original verb becomes what we may call the "indirect
object".

The generic formula is:

{X verb Y}  ---> (transitized) {Y-vaD X verb-moH Z}
where Z is the agent that causes the entire {X verb Y} clause.
And of course, remember we're still dealing with Klingon, so X is the object,
and Y is the subject in the first sentence.

This formula might seem a tad complex. So, the often prefered method is {X
verb Y 'e' qaSmoH Z}.


Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos



Back to archive top level