tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 04 10:34:40 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -choHmoH
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Sat, 3 Sep 94 17:03:22 EDT
>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 and his reading of {-moH} as always implying
>{-choH}, and so {-choHmoH} is never acceptable as a combination
>of suffixes, in Guido's opinion. Yet, there we are with two
>examples. Is Okrand wrong in both examples?
I don't find any problem with Okrand's constructions at all; in fact I have
trouble understanding Guido#1's standpoint. "-choHmoH" means that the
subject has caused the object to undergo a change of state (and draws
attention to the fact that the change has occurred). "Du'IHchoHmoH mIvvam"
implies that the helmet has caused you to *become* handsome (from not being
so before, or at least being so very differently). "vIlamHa'choHmoH"
similarly means "I make them become (i.e. start being) un-dirty."
I suppose almost any time you cause something to happen you're effecting a
change in state, but often that change is already in the verb. So
"HeghmoH" (as a compound) could mean "cause to die" without a need for
-choH. Sure, the object wasn't dying before the subject caused it to, But
neither was the subject of the simple verb "Hegh" dying before it started
to. Otherwise, you'd need "-choH" on every single non-stative verb in the
language!
For my money (and this won't help everyone, I know), I like to keep in mind
stuff from other languages when analyzing Klingon (realizing always that
Klingon is Klingon and not whatever I'm comparing it to). For those
Esperantists out there, "-choH" can be compared to the prefix "ek-" (not
all meanings). Let that help those whom it helps.
>charghwI'
~mark