tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 20:25:11 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: understanding {-moH}
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: understanding {-moH}
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:25:08 -0800
lab ghunchu'wI'
>ja' charghwI':
>>[in reply to a post from ghunchu'wI']
>>From our one small example of how transitive verbs handle the
>>dual objects created when {-moH} is added to the verb, you have
>>tossed out the much larger collection of canon, mistakenly
>>ascribing to it the prefix shortcut for indirect objects which
>>Okrand tells us only works with first or second person indirect
>>objects. Meanwhile, there are examples of the use of {-moH} on
>>intransitive verbs with third person objects.
I haven't followed the entire thread so I'm only going to partially
answer it.
>>I disagree. I think the grammatical use of {-moH} in Klingon is
>>simply irregular as we shift between transitive and intransitive
>>verbs. There's a great deal of canon around to back up my claim.
I agree that {-moH} is irregular, {?mevmoH} and {?taghmoH} come to
mind, but that irregularity doesn't preclude the use of {-moH} with
no object prefixes.
> We only have a canon *example* of {-moH} on an already
> transitive verb. We don't have an official grammatical explanation
> of it. I'm trying to offer one that *doesn't* treat it irregularly.
If the new theory adequately predicts the same things as the old one
AND predicts the previously unexplained, then it is useful.
> Perhaps it means going back and reevaluating some of the rules
> we've been using forever, but that does happen on occasion. [q.v.
> verbs of saying].
qaSbej.
>>> {jInguvmoH} -- "I paint."
>>
>>I'd be interested to know the difference you see in meaning
>>between {*jInguvmoH} and {vInguvmoHlu'}. I suggest there IS no
>>difference in meaning.
>
>Huh? These seem *very* different to me.
>{jInguvmoH} "I cause to be painted" or "I paint"
>{vInguvmoHlu'} "one causes me to be painted" or "I am painted"
>
>My word results in something other than the speaker -- something
>unspecified -- becoming dyed or tinted or stained. Yours results in
>the speaker getting dyed or tinted or stained. Perhaps you're just
>misunderstanding what part of the sentence I'm leaving unspecified?
I understood ghunchu'wI''s intended meaning at once with these
examples, and wouldn't even have noticed it as a source of
controversy had it occured in normal text.
> {vay' vInguvmoH} -- "I paint something." Now drop the object.
> {jInguvmoH} -- "I paint." Do you see what I'm saying here?
In some cases the jI<verb>moH statement immediately begs the question
{nuq Da<verb>moH} like saying "I illuminate" or "I cure" in English,
but I don't see it as ungrammatical.
>>> {jIghojmoH} -- "I teach."
>>
>>vIghojmoHlu'. "I teach." The meaning is the same and it doesn't
>>present us with the previously unseen intransitive prefix on a
>>verb with {-moH}.
>
>Again, one of us is very confused, and I think it's you this time.
>{jIghojmoH} "I cause to learn" or "I teach" {vIghojmoHlu'} "one
>causes me to learn" or "I am taught"
jIghoHmoHchugh ghoj latlh. vIghojmoHlu'chugh jIghoj jIH.
jIghojmoHtaHvIS jIghojbej jIH je 'ej jInguvmoHchugh
vInguvmoHlu' je: jISoy'mo' jInguv'eghmoHba'.
charghwI', do you disagree with {-'eghmoH}, or was this just a
twisted misunderstanding?
>> I mean, as many times as {-moH} has been used,
>> surely ONCE we would have seen it with an intransitive prefix if
>> were a valid construct.
Not necessarily. It isn't that common in English. It requires some
context to omit the object. I don't see {jInguvmoH} as implying
an artistic career, like the cocktail party "I paint" more like "I
sand" or "I loosen," valid statements but requiring some context to
make them work.
> I wonder how you'd translate Kruge's line in Star Trek III:
> "Exhilarating, isn't it?" That's the source of my use of {tlhuHmoH}
> which started this whole discussion.
My first impulse was {DutlhuHmoH, qar'a'?} but I'd take {tlhuHmoH,
qar'a'}. I'm reminded of {HeghmoH}, which makes perfect sense in its
irregular or (possibly still usable) regular meaning if you say
{HeghmoH, qar'a'?} or {HumanvaD HeghmoH tar}.
>>I don't. We have examples in canon of {jISop} and other
>>transitive verb roots with intransitive prefixes, but we have no
>>examples of an intransitive prefix on a verb with {-moH}. None.
>>Zero. pagh. Zed. Zilch. Nada.
It's quite possible that saying {jIyajmoH} is ungrammatical in
Klingon, but I don't believe there is any logical argument against
it.
>>I'll credit you that this is a very interesting idea, but I do
>>not believe that it is a valid one. DoSmey DIqIp. chaq
>>bIQeqchoHchu'chugh wa' DoS wIqIpchoH.
>
>jIpuStaH 'e' vIchoHmoHbe'. :-P jImultaH
ghunchu'wI' DoS leghbe' charghwI' 'e' vIpIH.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian