tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 30 22:15:42 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mujatlhmoH nuq jay'

> to say that biology causes us to talk. In this case, though, I think maybe it
> DOES make sense to use {-'e'}:
>                     nujatlhmoH yInQeD'e'

I like these solutions. But, what is the difference between the statement
above and

                      nujatlhmoH yInQeD?

(Sorry for asking silly questions, but I really can't figure it out.)

>      I'm not sure about that prefix because of the weirdness of {-moH}, but I
> think it is right. "It causes to talk us". This is much like {qaghojmoH},
> meaning "I teach you," though it is litterally, "I cause to learn you." We do
> not try to place "you" as the subject of "learn", even though you are. "I" am
> the subject of the causation, not the learning. I think that is the general
> pattern.

Yeah, it would be my guess, too. So, would my sentence be: nujatlhmoH Hol'e'?
Or is it maybe OK to write nuja'chuqmoH Hol'e', since the object of the verb
ja'chuqmoH is really the *subject* of the ja'chuq, and object is null?
(The language makes us discuss. No object on 'discuss').

>      This is a change from my earlier post. I thought it out more and think
> this interpretation of the wonder of {-moH} better fits canon.
> charghwI'


Back to archive top level