tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 27 16:34:02 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

-moH verbs as intransitive???



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


Back to archive top level