tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 24 00:11:10 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: -moH (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)

In a message dated 97-11-21 21:00:26 EST, you write:

<< charghwI' has argued that a no object prefix cannot be used on a
 transitive verb with -moH. ghunchu'wI' disagrees and gave some examples,
 including <jIghojmoH> for "I teach". charghwI' rejected this and other
 examples. I need to think more on charghwI''s general argument, but for
 this particular example, he is wrong. TKD gives <ghojmoH> as "teach,
 instruct" in a separate entry. I don't know whether this entry is an
 entirely different verb or just <ghoj> plus <-moH>, but it does clearly
 indicate that we can use <jIghojmoH> for "I teach". Whether this can be
 generalized will certainly be the subject of a long debate.
  >>

peHruS here:

I want to think on this more before joing a bigger battle.  Right now, I'd
settle for {matlhaSchuq}.  Throughout my studies of tlhIngan Hol, I have
maintained that any verb (at least any verb other than a purely descriptive
verb) could either take object and use the appropriate set of verb pronomial
prefixes or could do without an object and use the appropriate set of verb
pronomial prefixes.

So far, I have not had to consider entries such as {ja'chuq} and {ghojmoH} as
disticnt words of Klingon.  I have been able to use them as {ja'} with the
suffix {chuq} and {ghoj} with the suffix {moH}.  Still, {HoSghaj} and
{lo'laH} are stative verbs which defy breaking apart.  

In conclusion, I still am on the side of those of us who say verbs may take
either set of verbal pronomial prefixes.  I do look at Klingon as not always
translating smoothly into English.  I try to use Klingon as Klingon, not as a
translation of English.

peHruS

Back to archive top level