tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 14 04:17:11 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

-moH and other suffixes

>From: [email protected]
>Date: Mon, 14 Mar 94 01:27:04 EST

>>What do you folks think?  I think "qaQongrupmoH" for "I'm ready to put you
>>to sleep" is legal.  This came up, btw, when I was making a sentence "I'm
>>willing to teach you" and got "*qaghojmoHqang", then fixed it to
>>"qaghojqangmoH", and then decided to do something else and ask the list

>This {-moH} suffix, what a trouble-maker!

>This verb you have here {qaQongrupmoH} has both a subject and an object. Now,
>according to TKD 4.2.2 on type 2 verb suffixes: "Suffixes of this type
>express how much choice the *subject* has about the action described or how
>predisposed the *subject* is to doing it." (emphasis added).

Hey, yeah.  That makes sense.  Thanks, Guido!  You've found me some nice
support for what I was going to do anyway.

>So, it's downright translucent that the {-rup} in {qaQongrupmoH} should apply
>to the subject, an implicit {jIH}. And to say something like, "I cause you to
>be ready to sleep," i.e., "I make you tired," you would probably make better
>use of it as {bIQongrup 'e' vIqaSmoH}. A cop-out answer is to say simply
>{qaDoy'moH}, but copping out is not the Klingon way.

Always a wiseguy...  It's also not a general answer.

>Consider the {-vIp} suffix, which is strongly discouraged in use with the
>first person. This is not to say that it is not socially acceptable to say
>something like {mu'oy'vIpmoH}, meaning "He/She/It is afraid to hurt me." (And
>yes, if you check TKD, {'oy'} is intransitive). The {-vIp} here
>unquestionably refers to the implicit subject, {ghaH/'oH}. But only a nuch
>ngIm quvHa'qu' jay' would utter {jI'oy'vIp 'e' qaSmoH}, "He/She/It makes me
>afraid to be in pain."

One side-point I noticed:  This bit about "-vIp" not being used with
first-person subjects is not applied mechanically, flagging a warning
whenever "-vIp" and certain prefixes are on the same verb.  Remember the
canon example of "pIHoHvIpbe'" and its assorted examples with "-qu'".
(TKD 4.3).  Here, we have the "-vIp" negated, so it's okay.

>Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos


Back to archive top level