tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 22 08:55:31 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: understanding {-moH} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)

ghItlh charghwI' ghunchu'wI' je:

>>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"

If I say <nguvmoH> this is clearly "He causes (something) to be tinted" - or
is it "He causes IT to be tinted"??? It's both. Both are acceptable.
<nguvmoH> can be "He paints" or "He paints it." Seems clear to me.

Using <vI-> with <-lu'> makes first person sing. the object, so
<vInguvmoHlu'> is "Someone/Something causes me to be tinted." I am curious
to discover your logic, charghwI'.

>>> {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"

I see... and I agree, ghunchu'wI'. <jI-> does NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT mean there
is no object - it means there is no STATED object. I have been in the fray
of the question "Is there a Klingon transitive/intransitive distinction?"
too many times to not point out that <jISop> can mean that I'm eating
something, but I'm not referring to it now. Not all verbs can have an
object, I feel, but those which can may take a no-object prefix. This does
not equal intransitive use!!!

<-moH> verbs are no different, I suggest. If we free ourselves from the
confusion of the title "no object prefix", we will know that there's no
reason to object to use of <jI-> on <ghojmoH>. We are not specifying who is
learning, no. We are not referring to the students. They are implied, as
teachers are not teachers without students. But would anyone suggest to
answer the question <chay' Huch Dabaj'a'?> by saying <ghojwI'pu'
vIghojmoH>??? Or <vay' vIghojmoH>? <vIghojmoH> alone even is stilted - it
translates "I teach him/them". But that's not really needed to answer the
question, is it? Once we free ourselves from the illusion that seeing
no-object prefixes must mean that it will be translated into an intransitive
verb in English, we can then use the prefixes effectively for communication.

>{jIchoHmoH} "I cause to change" or "I change [something unspecified]"

This one translates poorly into English, and I can't think of a context in
which it's useful, but it's legal and correct.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level