tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 30 08:49:33 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: -moH



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

>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>	Does anyone see anything wrong with using a verb with "-moH" statively?
>Qapla'

Sorry if this has been answered a million times already...

If you mean "statively" as in adjectivally (i.e. following a noun as an
adjective), I have a problem with it.  We're told that verbs "expressing a
state or quality" can be used this way.  While it isn't 100% cut and dried,
it seems pretty clear to me (YMMV) that such verbs are intransitive, not
transitive.  That is, doing something to something else doesn't qualify as
a state or quality.  A verb with -moH by nature has to be transitive, so it
really sounds wrong to me.

I can see what you're trying for, though: using the transitive verb with
the unstated object (as in "jIghuHmoH"/"I warn [just in general]" or canon
"maSop"/"we eat [generally speaking, or something unimportant to the
discussion]") and trying for something like "?ghogh ghuHmoH"/"a warning
voice."  But that's really "ghuHmoHbogh ghogh" (then again, "Duj tIn" is
also "tInbogh Duj", so that's no proof either way), or possibly "ghuHmoHmeH
ghogh".  IMO, you shouldn't use -moH'ed verbs as adjectives.

If you mean "statively" as in without a stated object, like "maSop", then
I'd say I have no problem with that.  Okrand tells us that transitive verbs
can be used with no object, if the object is something general or
unspecified.

~mark

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

iQB1AwUBM2dqCsppGeTJXWZ9AQFeuwL/X+IYPlJe4CndztVlOjIBWCNJM/qJOYfa
dcAMD9t7gvsb1FKiDfD/nVvq6C9RAgSO3gC1wsb0FHgCZ2zItouvJHj1tJtuBD+1
+YYbM4wts4yHMSBtHquoNipi74urPLIY
=5psb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Back to archive top level