tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 24 09:21:12 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -moH (was Re: jIDach)
- From: [email protected] (Christiane Scharf)
- Subject: Re: -moH (was Re: jIDach)
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:24:36 +0200
jatlh QInteS:
>K'ryntes wrote and wrote and wrote:
>
>> K'ryntes wrote:
>>
>> > I saw a post on the newsgroup regarding something like this. Is
{mISmoH} a
>> > root verb? I thought it was. Which is why my suffixes appear in the
order
>> > they do. I wanted to say something that would roughly translate as "I
>> > unconfused myself". I "thought" I was only using two suffixes, a rover
which
>> > always follows the verb, and {-'egh} which would follow the rover.
>
>Wrote some more:
>
>>
>>
>> I posted this question to the newsgroup. Hopefully, MO will be by again
soon and
>> clarify whether these verbs are either actual verbs or verbs+suffixes.
But until
>> we hear from him, I don't see any use in debating either side.
>
>And wrote yet again, taking "talking to myself" to a new level:I know
better than to
>make statements like that. Sorry. I shouldn't assume that this question
hasn't
>already been asked and clarified a thousand times.I just found a canon
example of a
>{-moH} verb that doesn't use the {verb + moH} as a root verb.
>
>chenHa'moHlaH
>
>That's two revelations for me today! Do we know for sure that they aren't
roots? Or
>is that something still up in the air? Are all {-moH} verbs not really
verbs but
>just verbs + suffixes? Or does it depend on the verb? Oh, I should have
went to
>qep'a'. I could kick myself.
>
We don't know for sure for all of these verbs. I recently had a similar
problem with {HeghmoH}. The one word we know for sure it's a root verb is
{lo'laH}. Others, like {ghojmoH} or {chenmoH}, are just there for the
English speaker who wants to find the Klingon words for "teach" or "make".
As for {mISmoH}, I strongly suspect this is also just {mIS} + {-moH} "cause
s.o. to be confused" = "confuse s.o."
>QInteS, jImISqa'
>
HovqIj
-- temporary BG