tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 27 01:09:41 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -moH (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -moH (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:09:39 -0800
At 20:49 97-11-23 -0800, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
}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.
I started using a similar interpretation of {-moH} when I had to reconcile
the fact that the apparent direct object in a sentence like {XvaD Y
vI<verb>moH} is the thing verbed, not the thing made to verb. I don't see
it as a radical change in the description of {-moH}, just a consistent ay to
explain its objects. A theory does not have to be true, just predict what
happens and be consistent with the facts.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian