tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 17 11:30:09 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: clothing

ja' charghwI':
>I've never seen a verb with {-moH} and a no-object prefix in
>canon. Maybe it's out there and I missed it.

We've been through this before.
The Klingon Way, page 196:  Anger excites.  SeymoH QeH.

Back when the Skybox {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} first appeared, the way 
it treated {-moH} struck me like lightning.  Suddenly, the apparent 
weirdness of the definition of {tuQmoH} evaporated, and it was obvious
that it had been an important clue to the appropriate usage of {-moH}
on transitive verbs all along.  The object of the verb doesn't change 
when you add {-moH}.  You can treat transitive and intransitive verbs 
differently when dealing with {-moH}, or you can treat them the same 
and use a subtle variation of the "prefix trick" to explain why it
looks like there's an object when {-moH} goes on an intransitive verb.
The resulting words and sentences are the same no matter what you see 
as the underlying structure.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level