tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 17 11:30:09 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: clothing
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: clothing
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 99 14:07:07 EST
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'