tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 07 13:13:55 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC -vIp, -moH - was Re: jajlo'
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC -vIp, -moH - was Re: jajlo'
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 97 19:38:28 UT
> tulughvIpbe'moH - all of you cause me to not be afraid to be correct
> *tulughmoHvIpbe' - all of you are not afraid to cause me to be correct
>
>jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH
>I must wash my hair now.
>
>Literally, it is "I cause my hair to need to be clean," >which is not what's
>happening. It would seem as if we need the order {->moHnIS}. The simple
fact
>is, this is not allowed. Suffix order MUST be obeyed.
>
>So how do we distinguish those two meanings above? >I'm not sure. I can
think
>of instances where either may be useful (though, you >might consider using
>{tungHa'} for the first meaning).
Perhaps we're looking at this incorrectly. We both seem to be saying that -moH
modifies what comes just before it - but that might not be so. "...the subject
is causing a change" (TDK p. 38) but no mention of how this exactly is dealt
with.
The canon ex. above may show us that -moH modifies the root verb and not the
preceding suffix - this is consistent with what other suffixes seem to do as
far as I've observed. In that case,
tulughvIpbe'moH = all of you are not afraid to cause me to be correct
vISay'nISmoH = I must cause it to be clean
How then would we say "I cause it to need to be clean"? In this case, Say'nIS
vIlammoHmo' is my pick. Similarly, "all of you are not afraid to cause me to
be correct" may be 're-cast' and phrased this way - vIlughmoHlu' 'e'
bota'vIpbe' - You all are unafraid to accomplish that I am corrected.
If I'm correct here ('ej jIlughHa'vIpbe' 'e' boSov) then perhaps all
non-roving suffixes apply to only the root verb.