tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 08 11:15:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 14:15:36 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "David Trimboli" at Jul 6, 97 05:30:19 pm
According to David Trimboli:
>
> [email protected] on behalf of Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> No! Throughout all of this discussion, remember that we're still using {-vaD}
> with its original meaning. {yaSvaD qaqIpmoH} means "I cause you to hit, and
> the beneficiary of the officer," or "I cause you to hit the officer."
> (Whether you're striking the officer or striking someone else for the benefit
> of the officer himself is not actually expressed in this sentence. Context
> would tell.)
That's not the way I see Okrand revealing the use of {-maH} on
transitive verbs at all. The noun in the direct object position
is the direct object of the root verb, while the indirect
object (with {-vaD}) is the subject of the action of the root
verb. The subject of the {-moH}ed verb is the subect of
causation.
> > 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'
>
> No. {pe'} means "cut," not "be cut," so this sentence means "The guard causes
> the prisoner to cut (something) for the benefit of the knife," or "The guard
> causes the prisoner to cut the knife." There is NO "with" idea here.
Not at all. We need to take another look at the SkyBox card
about Worf's sash. It is the only canon example I know of the
use of {-moH} on a transitive verb and if my interpretation is
correct, you (SuStel) have this one wrong.
> > This might be clearer as qama' pe'meH taj lo' 'avwI' "To cut the prisoner,
> > the
> > guard uses a knife",
>
> This sentence I accept.
>
> > 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.
>
> By the way, {Hoch} is a noun with a plural meaning, but is treated
> grammatically as singular. Furthermore, {je} means "also" when it is
> following the verb, not the subject. This should be {yaj je Hoch 'e' vItul}.
bIlughchu'.
> --
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 97514.1
>
charghwI'