tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 01 17:29:24 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC - to paralyze oneself - <roSHa'moH'egh> ??

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:43:18 -0700
>From: Chet Braun <[email protected]>

>I would like to say:

>One who is fierce paralyzes his enemy.
>One who is angry paralyzes himself.

>jaghDaj roSHa'moH qu'wI'
>roSHa'moH'egh QeHwI'

>My question concerns the verb <roSHa'moH>.  Is this a verb as is, or is it
>the verb <roSHa'> with the <-moH> suffix?  The fact that there doesn't seem
>to be a verb <roSHa'> seems to indicate the former.  
>If it the latter is true then the type 1 suffix <-'egh> should not be allowed following
>the type 4 suffix <-moH>.  jIlugh'a'

It's a good question.  Is <roSHa'moH> a fossilized construction in its own
right, or a verb plus a suffix?  If the former, the reflexive would be
<roSHa'moH'egh>.  If the latter, it would be <roSHa''eghmoH> (I know it
doesn't seem intuitive to have the -'egh suffix before the
transitivizer/causitive -moH, but that's the way it is: Okrand says that's
the order they go in.  Best we can say is that the suffix-ordering doesn't
always follow intuition).

There *is* a verb "roS" meaning "lick," (from CK) but it doesn't seem all
THAT likely it's the origin of "paralyze" (it might be; stranger things
have happened [e.g., people paid money to see "Star Trek V"], and indeed
some folks here have mused about possible ways to make that work, but it
really seems far-fetched), so either we don't yet know the other "roS" that
was the origin of "roSHa'moH" or it is now obsolete (it's remotely possinle
that "roSHa'moH" is a primitive pollysyllabic verb that just HAPPENS to
resemble exactly a verb and not one but two suffixes, but that's *REALLY*
unlikely).

Still, in the evolution of "roSHa'moH" I'd expect that Klingons would
probably reflexivize it as "roSHa''eghmoH" because "-'eghmoH" would sound
natural, as it's how all other reflexive -moH verbs go, while "-moH'egh"
would just sound weird, since nothing else does it.  Hell, even if
"roSHa'moH" were a truly primitive polysyllabic verb common usage would
still probably have roSHa''eghmoH, even if pedants might complain and try
to correct it.

In answer to your question, I can firmly and decisively say "I don't know."
But as for me, I like "roSHa''eghmoH."

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMioqWcppGeTJXWZ9AQGSSwMAsXenIu790kAbvQ65cJNzPkNoPvFy22T7
T60LkBVDuX5tx54c7Yef2+35mnsUpkSlF/SjuXFYfevpbV2PUxOxaQAmx/wtRChD
FBXYcI0Cn6Rkk+AKh6HWgZUX7kzdPOdz
=VAZG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level