tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 09 09:58:26 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'



lab charghwI'
& According to Robyn Stewart:
&
& > 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.
& 
& 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.
& [...]
&Now, does this make more sense?

Definitely. DaH jIyajchu'. But it's going to take me a while to learn 
to hear a sentence like <targhvaD qam'a' HIvmoH 'avwI'> and know who 
is causing what to attack whom, without a few mental circles and 
arrows.  I mean it really *sounds* like the prisoner is the one being 
made to attack.

targh HIvmoH 'avwI' - The guard made a targ attack.
targhvaD HIvmoH 'avwI'. - The guard made a targ attack. (formal)
targhvaD qam'a' HIvmoH 'avwI' - The guard made a targ attack the 
prisoner.

Hmm, so verb+-moH doesn't really mean "cause to verb" It means 
"cause to be verbed, make verbed"

SoHvaD mIw vIyajmoH  - I make the procedure understood by you. 
(I make you understand the procedure)
ghaHvaD DI vIleghmoH - I make the rubble seen by him. 
(I make him see the rubble)
pa' vISay'moH - I cause the room to be clean. (I clean the room)

Did I miss this new information during my tlhIngan Hol downtime or 
did I just never notice its significance before? What is the source?

 - Qov

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


Back to archive top level