tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 27 16:34:02 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-moH verbs as intransitive???
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: -moH verbs as intransitive???
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 97 23:34:48 UT
In the New Words list, we find the following entry, which I think is
incorrect.
>chenmoH
>
>form, make, create (v.t. & v.i.) [TKD p38]
According to this, chenmoH is transitive or intransitive. This is odd, since
the definition of -moH implies a subject and an agent - a situation where we
invariably use a transitive verb prefix. This implies there is canon which
tells us that chenmoH can be used intransitively.
The given source gives one example of chenmoH in usage (transitively),
tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH = I form a boarding party
and mentions it in a non-context-related commentary on our options for
translation.
"...chenmoH *he/she makes, creates* could be translated *he/she causes to take
shape*..."
The description in the explanatory paragraph does seem to imply that PERHAPS
the verb chenmoH is usable in this way, but this could be also discarded as
simply an over-simplified explanatory note. Note that in this case we cannot
simply visually distinguish between transitive and intransitive from the
Klingon - we need context, which we are not provided here aside from the
English translations. I would have *expected* to see "...chenmoH *he/she
makes, creates it* could be translated *he/she causes it to take shape*..."
but I don't think it's appropriate to assume that the lack of an explicit
object in the English means that the English versions are anything more than
representative of the above usage, and simply fragments of that translation.
However, if chenmoH can be intransitive, then V+moH verb entries (or at least
this one) CANNOT BE, as I sense was previously thought, simply examples of how
the -moH suffix might be used. It would require an approach which did not
involve the requirements of -moH's gloss, otherwise we'd need to indicate an
object in the prefix. This would imply that the word 'chenmoH' can be an
intransitive 'root verb' all alone meaning 'create (v int)'. Not as a V+moH,
which is transitive - as a two-syllable verb. I am not prepared to accept
this, in light of the problems it stirs up.
"I am afraid to create" would then properly have the suffix order
jIchenmoHvIp!!! But if we slip -vIp in its 'correct' spot, we get
jIchenvIpmoH, which is clearly wrong. It should, according to the models I've
seen, be vIchenvIpmoH (or use a similar prefix which is object-specific). If I
can put an element in between a pair of Klingon syllables, it would be most
unusual to claim that the two syllables are acting as one word. And to claim
that chen + -moH can be used in a way no -moH canon I've seen allows for is to
assert just that.
What further complicates this is usage in TDK pp. 47-48.
chenHa'moHlaH = It can cause them to undo their form
Here, -Ha', which always immediately follows the verb, intervenes between chen
and -moH. Of course this example occurs in the same source as the other one,
so neither precedes the other. But yet again this usage agrees with all other
-moH canon except the one possible example in TDK p. 38.
To use chenmoH is to imply that something is caused to take form. What that is
is the object of 'create'. To assume any V+moH can be used transitively
involves either acceptance of V+moH as a root verb, which the preceding
paragraph shows is unlikely, or re-definition of the -moH suffix to allow for
nothing to be caused, which I don't think is within our power. Either the
entry on the New Words page is in error, or MO has some explaining to do! :) I
await your responses....
Qermaq