tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 08 05:06:47 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -choHmoH
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 6 Sep 94 9:19:27 EDT
>According to R.B Franklin:
>...
>> Good examples. jonta'mey DatujchoHmoHlI'vIS, DujlIj luQIH jagh Duj.
>>
>> yoDtargh
>{-lI'vIS} Dalo'laHbe'. {-taHvIS} Dalo'nIS. loS DoD cha' DoD Hut
>(4.2.9 of TKD) yIlaD.
>I'd also appreciate it if either ~mark or Krankor would comment
>on this {-choHmoH} business. I feel like those who seem to be
>making the policy here may not fully recognize the
>ramifications of their interpretation, and I really wonder if
>everyone else thinks this is a good interpretation of the
>difference between a verb with a lone {-moH} vs. {choHmoH}. I
>was a little dissappointed that nobody commented on my own
>suggestion for the difference.
I thought I did post a respose. I remember writing one, and it's in my
outgoing mail file.
I also thought about it a little more; considering ways to explain my point
of view better. Let's try again.
"-choH" implies a change of status. "-moH" implies causation. The example
given of "pa' HurghmoH toy'wI'" to me implies that the servant was causing
the room to *be* dark, not necessarily to *become* dark. Maybe he was
standing in front of the window when I walked in, or holding the light
switch in the "off" position. I don't know about change of status, or more
likely I just am not talking about it now. The room may or may not become
light if stops doing whatever he's doing, and he may never have changed its
status; all I'm asserting is that it's through the agency of the servant
that the room exists in a state of darkness.
The sentence "pa' HurghchoHmoH toy'wI'" means that I'm talking about the
servant's causing the room to *become* dark. He did something that changed
its status to darkness. He may or may not be maintaining that darkness;
the sentence doesn't preclude either. He might have sat on the light
switch and is still doing so... but this sentence is only discussing the
sitting on it in the first place. The servant effected a change in the
room's status, or if you like the servant caused the room to undergo a
change in status.
This is more or less what I said before; how does it strike you? Agree?
Disagree? Don't understand? Want more doughnuts?
>charghwI'
~mark