tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 17:49:27 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
ja' charghwI':
>The grammar changes when the verb is transitive or intransitive.
>Deal with it.
>
>If you think otherwise, explain yourself better.
I do think otherwise, but I think I reached the limit of "better" in this
particular debate quite some time ago. If I were again to explain the way
I think {-moH} works in general, we would just end up repeating ourselves,
and we really don't need to subject everyone else to that. :-)
I'll just ask you to consider the verb {Sop}, which is often used either
with or without an object. How would you understand these sentences?
For the sake of argument, assume a Qa' is talking. :-)
jISop
qaSop
qaSopmoH
targh qaSopmoH
targhvaD qaSopmoH
Only one of them doesn't make any sense to me, and another seems to
suggest two possible meanings, based on whether I'm considering a
transitive {Sop} or an intransitive one. Since transitive verbs
like {DuQ} can generally be used without an object, I do see a real
potential for ambiguity in a word like {qaDuQmoH}. Especially when
the beneficiary is something like {tIq}, which usually doesn't have
the ability to stab anything.
>The "older" interpretation was OUR interpretation, not HIS,
>unless you are talking about INTRANSITIVE verbs plus {-moH}.
>There are no "older" examples of Okrand using it the other way.
I think the dictionary entry {tuQmoH} is at least a partial example.
-- ghunchu'wI'