tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 05 10:09:58 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- Date: Sat, 5 Jul 97 16:38:45 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Qermaq wrote:
> I had never noticed until now that all that -moH canon was involving
> intransitive nouns! jIHvaD DayajmoH 'ej qatlho'.
Ick. Logical or no, there's no reason to do this.
choyajmoH
There *is* an example of a transitive verb with {-moH}: {HIQoymoH} "Let me
hear (something)." (TKD p.38)
You're going to say, "Aha! The 'something' refers to another object, so we're
talking about a ditransitive verb, or something like that!" I say no. This
line was snatched from Star Trek III, where Kruge wants to hear what his
officers who have boarded the Enterprise are hearing. The English which he
says is "Let me hear."
Just as verbs with a no-object prefix can mean that the object is general, so
I believe that {HIQoymoH} "let me hear (something)" has the "something" as a
general thing.
(According to charghwI''s logical argument, if you HAVE a thing you're
hearing, it would look like this: {jIHvaD bom yIQoymoH}. It's icky, but he's
probably right. But when you've got a less-than-explicit object, you don't
use this sort of thing.)
HIQoymoH
Let me hear (something in general or unspecified).
jIHvaD bom yIQoymoH
Let me hear the song.
choyajmoH
You make me understand (things in general or unspecified).
jIHvaD mIw DayajmoH
You make me understand the procedure.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97510.4