tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 20:29:58 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -moH (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
ja' charghwI':
>...ghunchu'wI' is proposing that it is okay for the root verb to
>not have a subject...
Oops. I *thought* you clearly understood my proposal, but apparently you
are still attributing to it parts of your own understanding of how {-moH}
works.
I'm attempting to interpret {-moH} as *not* affecting the transitivity of
the root verb. What you call the "object of causality and subject of the
root verb" is considered the receiver/beneficiary of the causation in my
interpretation.
{yIQoy} "Hear it."
{jIHvaD yIQoymoH} "Cause-hear it for me."
{HIQoymoH} "Cause-hear me." (using an indirect-object prefix)
There's no simple English word that means "cause-hear", so we resort to
using an infinitive to translate it: "Cause me to hear." But I'm viewing
this as a multiple-step process, first going through a stage with {-vaD},
and then collapsing the indirect object into the verb prefix.
{quHDaj qawmoH} "It remembers his heritage."
{ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} "It cause-remembers his heritage for him."
There *is* a simple English word meaning "cause-remember", so we can use
it to translate: "It reminds his heritage for him." We can rearrange it
to "It reminds for him his heritage." We can also reword it a little and
say "It reminds him of his heritage."
-- ghunchu'wI'