tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 08 12:17:54 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 15:16:32 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Robyn Stewart" at Jul 7, 97 01:48:20 pm
According to Robyn Stewart:
>
> This isn't marked KLBC, so I started to give my own
> explanation, and then I noticed something I hadn't noticed before. I
> think we are completely WRONG in the way we use ghojmoH ....
...
> Qermaq's ?<jIHvaD mIw DayajmoH> parallels the <ghojmoH> example quite
> neatly, but it seems to mean "You cause the procedure to understand
> for me."
That is because you are logically building this construction
out of the meaning of each word rather than accepting the
unusual grammatical construction Okrand has given us for using
{-moH} on a transitive verb. According to the canon example we
have, this glosses to "You make me understand the procedure."
You might more literally interpret it to mean, "You cause
understanding the procedure for me."
The starting point that causes what I consider to be your error
is that you have not reconstructed the intransitive {-moH}
using the new information Okrand has given us. What he is
telling us is that now that we see how the transitive verb with
{-moH} works, we realize that what we have been taking as the
direct object of <intransitive verb + {-moH}> is actually the
INDIRECT object of that <intransitive verb + {-moH}>. We can do
that because there is no direct object there to compete with
the indirect object, so we just allow the indirect object to
sit in its place.
bIba' = you sit.
qaba'moH = I make you sit.
More formally, according to the new information, we could have
written this as:
SoHvaD jIba'moH.
Meanwhile, NOBODY EVER SAYS IT THAT WAY. It is always
compressed into {qaba'moH}.
When there actually IS a direct object of the verb, as in "I
cause the Klingon to see the tribble," then the REAL direct
object goes in the direct object slot and the indirect object
we have so far misunderstood to be direct object goes back into
its formal position:
tlhInganvaD yIH vIleghmoH.
Now, does this make more sense?
charghwI'
> - Qov, who isn't going to say <tlhIngan Hol vIghojqangmoH> anymore.
but you COULD say {vay'vaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojqangmoH.>
> Robyn Stewart [email protected]
> NLK Technical Library ph. (604) 689-0344 fax (604) 443-1000
> NLK Consultants Inc. 855 Homer Street, Vancouver BC V6B 5S2
>
charghwI'