tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 26 16:16:01 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
jIja'pu':
>>tIqwIjvaD qaDuQmoH - "I cause my heart to stab you"
>
>This one is not at all obvious. It seems to me that it has a much stronger
>chance of meaning of "I cause you to stab for the benefit of my heart."
ja' charghwI':
>When I think about the way Okrand has used {-moH} on transitive
>verbs, this fits the pattern. The subject of verb+moH is the
>agent of causation. The indirect object is the agent of the
>root verb's action and the direct object is the direct object of
>the root verb's action.
Yes, it fits the pattern. I don't deny that pagh's sentence *can* be
interpreted with the desired meaning. I just think it calls out more
strongly for the alternate interpretation I pointed out.
>The interpretation you are now giving matches the one most of us
>had before seeing Okrand's one example and we generally
>abandoned that interpretation and took on the newer one.
>Meanwhile, you were one of the first people saying that the new
>way made sense.
I think it's a matter of conflicting with the "prefix trick". Using a
second-person object on a transitive verb plus {-moH} just triggers
too many patterns in my brain simultaneously, and the wrong one comes
through most clearly when I look at this example.
>I think this reads as "I cause my heart to stab you." I also
>happen to think that is gibberish, but that is the way I'd sort
>out the subject, object, causative agent, etc.
After I "work out" the intended grammar, I can hear it either way with
neither interpretation really calling out any louder than the other.
But the immediate meaning I get isn't the one pagh was trying to give.
-- ghunchu'wI'