tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 07 22:02:29 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: understanding {-moH}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: understanding {-moH}
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 01:02:18 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
majQa'. rut muj charghwI' net Sov.
On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:53:27 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> [regarding {jInguvmoH}, {jIghojmoH}, etc.]
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >...We have examples in canon of {jISop} and other
> >transitive verb roots with intransitive prefixes, but we have no
> >examples of an intransitive prefix on a verb with {-moH}. None.
> >Zero. pagh. Zed. Zilch. Nada.
>
> Retyping pages of text to make "quick reference" documents pays off --
> I found such an example.
>
> The Klingon Way, page 196:
>
> SeymoH QeH.
> "Anger excites."
>
> 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}.
>
> Sorry, Charlie. I mean, charghwI'. :-)
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
> (DachlI'mo' charghwI' ghaHvaD jabbI'IDvam vIlab je.
> charghwI', bItaHmeH Dutlhejjaj vajna' qa'.)
tlhoS jIchegh.
charghwI'