tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 08 20:15:33 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - to paralyze oneself - <roSHa'moH'egh> ??
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC - to paralyze oneself - <roSHa'moH'egh> ??
- Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:16:32 -0400
At 05:33 PM 9/1/96 -0700, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>-----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).
[...]
Is there a particular reason you didn't leave this for your poor, bedraggled
BG, Mark? {{:)
bISovbej Hoch SoH: jangpa' "BG", yIjangQo'!
qatlh jabbI'IDvam Dajangpu'????
>~mark
--tQ
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet (Klingon speaker and net junkie!)
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...