tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 30 13:26:14 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:suffixes
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC:suffixes
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 16:26:10 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "chas" at Dec 30, 97 12:30:55 pm
According to chas:
>
> >> >> SoH DuyepHa''a' QeH'a'li'?
> >> >> Does your wrath make you careless?
> >> SoH DuyepHa''a'mo' QeH'a'lIj?
> >
> >Think {-moH}, not {-mo'}.
>
> SoH DuyepHa''a'moH QeH'a'lIj?
Well, now you need to look at the suffix order. I know it is a
lot of details to get straight, but it works better and you
learn more if instead of looking at what you've done as if it
were a painting where you just want to fix a detail, look at
the whole thing again. Focusing on one detail makes it easy to
forget things like suffix order.
> So {-moH} and {-mo'} are not really equivalent?
No. {-moH} primarily makes intransitive verbs transitive, as in:
'oy' nachwIj. My head hurts.
yIH vI'oy'moH. I hurt the tribble.
vIH targh. The targ moved.
quSwIj vIvIHmoH. I moved my chair.
It also can be used with transitive verbs, but the grammar is a
bit confusing and I'd prefer to leave that for another time.
Get the use of {-moH} down with intransitive verbs first. The
use with transitives is a more advanced topic.
{-mo'} turns the clause containing a verb into a dependent
clause. {-mo'} ties this verb to another verb. {-moH} doesn't
do that at all.
chuSmo' yIH vISammeH ngeD Qu'. Because the tribble is noisy, I
can find it easily. [Literally, "Because the tribble is noisy,
in order that I find it, the task is easy."
jIDoy'mo' DaH jImev. I'm stopping now because I'm tired.
If I say, {jIDoy'}, that is a complete sentence. If I say
{jIDoy'mo'} that is not a complete sentence. {vIDoy'moH} is a
complete sentence.
> Then does
> {-moH} mean "to bring about the action of the verb," and
> {-mo'} mean "caused by the nature of the verb's action?"
Yes, but perhaps it is more clarifying to recognize that the
causation described by {-moH} relates to the action of the verb
to which this suffix is applied. The causation implied in
{-mo'} relates to some OTHER verb, hence the dependent clause.
> >
> >> >> chaH nuchmo' vImuSmo'
> >> >> Since he is a coward, I hate him.
> >> ghaH nuchmo' vImuS
> >
> >This one is easy to get confused about. We say {tlhIngan maH}.
> >We don't say {maH tlhIngan}. So, you don't say {ghaH nuchmo'}.
> >And before you make a wild stab at it, consider which word
> >deserves {-mo'}. You want to say, "because he is a coward, I
> >hate him." You don't want to say "Because of a coward, I hate
> >him."
>
> nuch ghaHmo' vImuS
> coward (equals) him (and as a result) I hate him
Yes, this works. "Because he is a coward, I hate him."
> [or]
>
> nuchmo' ghaH vImuS
No, this doesn't work. "Because of a coward, I hate him." Which
coward? We don't know. It is very easy to see {nuchmo'} as
separate from {ghaH}. Even if we put a comma in to say {nuchmo'
ghaH, vImuS.} it looks like, "He is because a coward, I hate
him." In other words, it looks very strange.
> as a consequence of being a coward (which nature is
> assigned to) him, I/him hate
No, it really doesn't work.
> So {nuch} and {ghaH} are in apposition, thus equivalent, and
> the 'cowardice' I'm hating is the result of "him" and
> "coward" being equivalent? Or, in more wooden terms, He is
> a coward (and) because of that, I hate him?
I think you are overanalyzing here:
nuch ghaH.
He is a coward.
nuch ghaHmo'
Because he is a coward.
We are using {-mo'} as a VERB suffix here. Pronouns can be used
as verbs. It is his being a coward that causes you to hate him.
You are not caused by a coward to hate him. You are caused to
hate him by his state of cowardice; by his BEING a coward. The
BEING is contained by the pronoun acting as verb {ghaH}, not by
the noun {nuch}. You want the whole clause to be the cause of
your hatred, not just the noun.
Does this help?
> chasm
>
>
charghwI'