tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 25 21:43:44 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC jISuptaH (fwd)
According to R.B Franklin:
...
> I find {-choH} and {-moH} to be very confusing. I have often wondered
> why they are not both Type 3 suffixes. But since {-moH} is Type 4 (it is
> the only Type 4, BTW), it appears to me that it was intended that they
> could be used together.
I believe that as well, though I now believe I need to more
closely consider the circumstances under which they are
appropriate to be used together.
> Here are my questions:
>
> 1. Does {-choH} change transitive verbs into intransitive verbs?
>
> maghwI'vaD Hich vIbaHta'. I fired my pistol at the traitor.
> maghwI'vaD baHchoHta' HIchwIj. My pistol was fired at the traitor.
I think this is incorrect. Your second sentence says something
closer to: "My pistol begins to have accomplished firing at the
traitor." It's a rather odd statement, actually. The Klingon
translation of your English statement would be closer to:
maghwI'vaD HIchwIj baHlu'ta'.
Notice that the implication is that some unidentified person
fired your pistol. Either it was not you, or you are being
sarcastically evasive.
> 2. Does {-moH} change intransitive verbs into transitive verbs?
>
> ror SajwIj. My pet is fat.
> SajwIj vIrormoH. I fatten my pet.
> (or even <SajwIj vIrorchoHmoH.>) I make my pet become fat.
Yes. This is the single function of {-moH}. This is why I think
that it does not really matter that placing {-moH} on a verb
with an object becomes incomprehensible. The point is that
{-moH} was designed to be used with intransitive verbs in order
to make them transitive similar to the way that {-wI'} makes
verbs into nouns. By attaching the sense of causation, an
intransitive verb becomes transitive.
So when should we use {-choH} and {-moH} together? I think that
while {-moH} implies a state of change similar to {-choH} that
by putting the two together, you place emphasis on the CHANGE
to the condition instead of the change to the CONDITION.
Examples? Consider the agent who makes an actor {DawI'} (okay,
so I'm stretching things a bit) famous. If that actor goes on
to become {DawI''a'}, he might say:
DawI' vInoymoH 'ej DaH DawI' noy law' Hoch noy puS.
"I made the actor famous and now he is the most famous actor of
all."
If, on the other hand, his career is somewhat less successful,
he might say:
DawI' vInoychoHmoH 'ach QaplaHbe'taH qoH.
"I made the actor BECOME famous, but the fool could not continue
to succeed."
Placement of the rover {-be'} took some thought there and I'm
still not happy with it. {QaplaHbe'taH} means that he continues
to not be able to succeed or that he is not able to continue to
succeed. {QaplaHtaHbe'} means that he does not continue to be
able to succeed or that he is able to not continue to succeed.
In both cases, there is an ambiguous alternative meaning that I
do not like. Of the two, the first pair is less objectionable.
> yoDtargh
charghwI'