tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 07 11:50:09 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: understanding {-moH}

ghItlh ghunchu'wI'
>This is *exactly* the way I was using {tlhuHmoH} when this particular 
>debate broke out.  The Klingon is ambiguous, as the null prefix could
>be interpreted as implying a third-person object, but the translation
>makes it clear that there isn't one.  {SeymoH} "excites" obviously is
>being used intransitively.  It works just like {jISop}.

Here's another canon example like that: from the Hallmark commercial.  I
didn't actually see it, but this is from what Okrand said on it.

> I haven't seen the commercial in a while, but I don't think wov was used
as
> a noun there.  Though the Klingons in the ad may have ad libbed a bit,
the
> phrase the one Klingon was supposed to say regarding the little lights in
> the Bird of Prey ornament was:
> 
>       wovmoHbogh janHommey
> 
> That is, "little devices that cause (something) to be light or bright" or
> "little devices that brighten (something)" or "little devices that light
> (something) up" or the like.   wov is a verb "be light, bright" followed
by
> the suffix -moH "cause" (thus, "cause to be light").

This seems exactly like what we're talking about, doesn't it?
Qapla'
qoror

Back to archive top level