tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 06 12:08:14 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'



jIghItlh 'ej ghItlh charghwI' je:

>> puq vIqIp
>> I hit the child.
>> 
>> vIqIp
>> I hit (him/her). (object is clear in context)
>> 
>> yaS vIqIpmoH
>> I cause the officer to hit. (no object being "hit")
>> 
>> yaSvaD puq vIqIpmoH
>> I cause the hitting of the child for the officer.
>> 
>> ?*yaSvaD vIqIpmoH
>> I cause the hitting (of an understood object) for the officer.
>>
>> These seem distinct to me. Perhaps we have canon to make the last one 
clearly 
>> wrong. I await your responses!
>
>I think you have a good point. I see it as the difference 
>between saying, "I caused the officer to hit him," and "I caused 
>the officer to hit." If you want the first of these two 
>meanings, then I think your questioned example is correct. In 
>all canon examples where the unmarked noun in the direct object 
>position for a verb + {-moH} is the agent/subject of the root 
>verb's action, the verb is intransitive. There is no direct 
>object of the action of the verb. If you want there to be such a 
>specific object explicit or implicit (suggested by the prefix), 
>then I think it is proper to mark the agent-noun with {-vaD}.

Another example of how this could be used without a 'stated' object, as SuStel 
seemed to want:

yaSvaD qaqIpmoH
I cause you to be hit by the officer.

I find this interesting. So now we can say "the guard causes the prisoner to 
be cut with the knife."

tajvaD qama' pe'moH 'avwI'

This might be clearer as qama' pe'meH taj lo' 'avwI' "To cut the prisoner, the 
guard uses a knife", but the above sentence is apparently a correct way to 
express this concept as well. In fact, it may be syntactically more 
appropriate in order to leave out the verb 'use' to emphasize the verb 'cut'.

vIyaj 'ej vIparHa', charghwI'. luyaj Hoch je 'e' vItul.

Qermaq








Back to archive top level