tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 08 18:55:42 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "nuqneH" Sajatlh

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:02:50 -0800
>From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
>
>Message text written by "David Trimboli"
>>> The literal way of translating my sentence would be "I will cause
>> you to be destroyed."
>
>No, it does not.  {Qaw'} means "destroy," not "be destroyed."  There's a world 
>of difference between these two.
><
>
>All right, I've goofed a bit.  I was slightly wrong in my message, so I'll list
>some problems.  Okrand wasn't consistent in his examples with "-moH."  Some of
>them are passive, and some active -- I'll list all that I found, in the most
>literal form.
>
>>From 4.2.4
>
>tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH
>I cause a boarding party to be formed.  (passive.)
>
>HIQoymoH
>Cause me to hear (something).  (active)

I think your distinctions are artificial.  There's nothing inherently
active or passive about any of these, only in how you choose to word them
based on English.  "chen" means "to take form."  "tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH"
means "I cause a boarding party to take form."  Note that there is no
significant difference in meaning between "to be form" and "to take form"
or even "to form" (as used in English intransitively, in "middle voice":
the boarding party formed while we waited).  "-moH" simply means that you
cause the action of the verb to happen.  The action is that of taking form,
and I cause it to happen.  pItlh.

>>From the "cheat sheet"
>
>nuqDaq waqwIj vIlamHa'choHmoH
>Where can I cause my shoes to be made undirty? (passive)
>
>Du'IHchoHmoH mIvvam
>This helmet causes you to become handsome.  (active)

Similarly, "lam" means "to be dirty."  It sounds passive because of the
"be", but it isn't passive.  At best, it's stative, indicating the state.
"lamHa'" is "to be undirty", and "lamHa'choH" is "to become undirty."  Any
passivity there?  No, not really.  "Where can I cause the action of my
shoes' becoming undirty?"

>As you can see, there's an equal division.  But I've only searched in TKD.  I
>haven't looked through TKW, and I don't have PK or CK.  If anyone can, could you
>see if you could find some there?  Thanks.

I don't think the distinction exists, let alone is divided equally; it
looks like you are imposing concepts that aren't present on the language.

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMyImpcppGeTJXWZ9AQHUqgMAkIv6DkzeEcLreH38awGuVBKh5IFYAEaj
qlCDBNWqH9m0O9pjXpjdBwYWsz0fUXvfrXgzFTudTuxhDf+6wRT/TvmjfoRViHaS
3vLx82KsLsNEQg4q0RP5aWtXikmLbREe
=yPE5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level