tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 04 03:24:36 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -choHmoH
According to R.B Franklin:
>
> > Rambling through old mail, I saw a message quoting two examples
> > from the Useful Klingon Expressions in TKD:
> >
> > nuqDaq waqwIj vIlamHa'choHmoH
> > Du'IHchoHmoH mIvvam
> >
> > I found this interesting, in the light of recent discussions
> > with Guido#1...
>
> I think the two suffixes {-choH} & {-moH} are neither synonymous nor are
> they mutually exclusive. They each impart a distinct meaning to a verb,
> whether they are used separately or together. {-choH} is a Type 3 suffix
> while {-moH} is a Type 4 suffix; which implies that they serve different
> functions and the use of one is independent of the use of the other.
While I tend to agree, I don't quite agree with all of the
conclusions you come to based upon this. It is not that I
presume that you are wrong. I just see this somewhat
differently.
> I think the dispute has arisen because of the ambiguity of the wording in
> Sec. 4.2.4. because, like Sec. 4.2.3, it talks about a change in
> condition. But I think the concept of CAUSATION is the important element
> which distinguishes {-moH} from {-choH}. Sec. 4.2.4 reads, "Adding this
> suffix to a word indicates that the SUBJECT is CAUSING a change of
> condition or CAUSING a new condition to come into existence." (Emphasis
> added.)
The problem here is that you emphasize things one way and
Guido#1 emphasizes it another way and in neither case does the
emphasis prove anything. In yet a third perspective, I see that
causation implies change, but that by adding {-choH} we focus
attention to the moment when a change occurs with no reference
to its continuation. In this way, I see {-choHmoH} as a near
opposite of {-choHtaH}.
By example:
jonta' mevchoHmoH HoD.
"The captain caused the engine to stop." He turned it off. It
changed from running to stopping. We say nothing about how long
this will last. He may turn it again on any time now. Also, he
may walk away and someone else may turn it back on and he would
have nothing to do with it. There is no continued causative
link.
nIn ngaSwI'Daq jonta' mevmoH bIQ.
"Water in the fuel container causes the engine to stop." Until
you get the water out of the container, the engine will
continue to be stopped. While it is true that there was a
moment when the water caused the engine to change to a state of
stopping, our interest is aimed more at the condition that it
continues to cause that state to exist.
> >From reading Secs. 4.2.3 & 4.2.4 the conclusions I have drawn are that
> (1) the primary function of {-choH} is to indicate CHANGE; and
> (2) the primary function of {-moH} is to indicate CAUSATION.
>
>
> Examples:
> Hurgh pa' The room is dark.
> HurghchoH pa'. The room becomes dark.
> {-choH} indicates a change is occuring. The illumination in the room
> changes from light to dark.
>
> Pa' HurghmoH toy'wI'. The servant darkens the room.
> {-moH} indicates that the subject (The servant) is causing the darkness to
> occur. The degree of change is not indicated, all we know is that the
> servant causes the room to become somewhat darker than it was before,
> i.e. The servant turns down the light in the room.
I might also interpret this to describe a large servant
standing next to the window, blocking the light. Again, the
focus is on the causation, but I tend to think of it in terms
of the servant's continued action causing the continued effect.
The link between cause and effect continues beyond the point of
the initial change of state.
> Pa' HurghchoHmoH toy'wI'. The servant makes the room become dark.
> The inclusion of both {-choH} & {-moH} indicates two things:
> (1) {-choH} means a CHANGE occured. The room changes from a state of
> brightness to a state of darkness; and
> (2) The SERVANT is what CAUSED the room to become dark.
> I.e. The servant turned off the light in the room.
Here, I invision the servant turning off the light in the room,
AND THEN LEAVING. There is no causation between the room
CONTINUING TO BE DARK and the servant's continued action. The
servant caused the room to BECOME dark. The servant does not
continue to cause the room to continue to be dark. It now
continues to be dark because the switch continues to be off,
but if someone else turns the switch on, then the servant does
not have to be in any way related to this.
Meanwhile, the servant blocking the window needs to move in
order to let more light in the room. See the difference?
> In short, I think {-choHmoH} would imply a greater degree of change than
> {-moh} alone.
Here is where we disagree. I think both can have equal degree
of change, but that the action of {-moH} without {-choH}
implies a connection between the continued cause and the
continued new state, while the addition of {-choH} implies that
the causer is responsible for only the change in state, not the
continuation of the new state.
> BaS vItujmoH. I heat the metal. (raise the temperature somewhat)
Instead, I read this to mean that the metal is heated because
of you. When you stop heating it, it will cool. You are sitting
there, fanning the flames beneath it, or you are holding it
over the flame.
> BaS vItujchoHmoH. I make the metal become hot. (change the
> temperature from cold to hot)
Here, I suspect that you placed the metal in an oven or kiln of
some sort and then walked away. You caused the metal to BECOME
hot, but you are not in any way an active agent in making it
continue to be hot. Some other cause can come along and cool
it. As another possibility, you might be saying that you held
the metal over the flame until it was hot, and then you put it
down and now it is cool. Still, you caused the metal to become
hot. You just didn't KEEP it that way.
> When I read the expression, {Du'IHchoHmoH mIvvam}, I chuckled because it
> implies {Mivvam DateqDI' vaj bImoH}.
While that is one possibility, all the expression REALLY says
is that this helmet causes you to become beautiful. You could
become ugly while still wearing it. You could remain beautiful
after you take it off. Attention is focussed upon the moment
that you put on that helmet. When you put it on, you became
beautiful, and the helmet caused the change. If the statement
had been merely {Du'IHmoH mIvvam}, then you would be beautiful
only while you wear the helmet and you could not be ugly while
wearing it. Then the helmet causes you to be beautiful, so as
long as you wear it, you are beautiful and when you remove it,
you become ugly.
I think this fits Okrand's intent. Do others find this
perspective interesting?
> yoDtargh