tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 30 22:41:02 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

chenmoH, ghojmoH

Forewarning: I have absolutely no respect for the recent series of tirades
against you, so getting all snickety about where the source of anything I
say is won't induce me to discuss things with you.  I refuse to get into the
"I'm right, you're wrong, and therefore my logic is the correct logic" game
going round.  Trying to drag me into it will only have the effect of me not
bothering to read the list anymore.  I won't yell and scream at you if you
don't agree with what I say, but neither does that mean you should walk all
over me.  If anything, it means you should tread with care.


{chen} "take form"
{chenmoH} "cause to take form"

"I cause a boarding party to take form" is identical in meaning to "I cause
a boarding party to be formed," and Marc Okrand's translations are all
centered around the meaning, not the word-for-word translation.

{ghoj} "learn"
{ghojmoH} "cause to learn"

{ghoj} does NOT mean "be learned," and so therefore {ghojmoH} does NOT mean
"cause to be learned."


Or let's put it another way.


{chen} "take form"

The subject of {chen} is the thing which takes form.

{chenmoH} "cause to take form"

The object of {chenmoH} is the thing which takes form.  A thing which "takes
form" "is formed."


{ghoj} "learn"

The subject of {ghoj} is the one who learns.

{ghojmoH} "cause to learn"

The object of {ghojmoH} is therefore the one who learns, NOT the thing which
is learned.


Or yet a third way:


tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH, vaj chen tIjwI'ghom.

puqpu' vIghojmoH, vaj ghoj puqpu'.


That's how {-moH} works.  My source?  The Klingon Dictionary.

Your interpretation comes entirely on the *alternate* translation of the
sentence.  Note that this is not the first one given.  The original is "I
form a boarding party."  He then goes on to say that one *might* translate
that as "I cause a boarding party to be formed."  This is identical in
meaning to "I cause a boarding party to take form," and it sound more
natural IN ENGLISH.  So, he said it that way.

{-moH} does not mean "cause to BE <verb>'d."  It means "cause to <verb>."

Do you disagree with any of this?  Please specify.

And if you really do think that {-moH} means "cause to be <verb>'d," how do
you translate something like {puq vIQuchmoH} or {bIQ vItujmoH}?

Finally, to indicate the SUBJECT taught, you can do one of two things.  You
can either believe in charghwI''s Ha'quj, or you can use rules of Klingon
that we DO know.  For instance: {puqpu' vIghojmoH; tonSaw' lughoj.}

In conclusion: your use of {ghojmoH} is based upon an a single example whose
various possible English translations have confused you as to the function
of the suffix {-moH}.  You're taking it word-for-word, rather than as
concepts.

SuStel
Stardate 99245.1


jatlh peHruS:
You say it is quite clear to you. Meanwhile I say it is quite clear to me
that we cause a subject to learned. The one example TKD p38 gives clearly is
{tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH}. The translation is "I cause a boarding party to be
formed." Although the final paragraph of section 4.2.4 say "Normally, the
best English translation of a verb with {-moH} does not contain the word
'cause,'" I will stick with my reasoning for the time being to explain why I
recognize that the object of {ghojmoH} is the subject or course, not the
person. So far as my logic allows, I cannot "cause a person to be learned"
in
the normal sense of things. Maybe Klingon does allow for a follow-up to
{yIHaDqu'} on page 27, such as {nuv vIHaDmoH}.


Finally, you have not provided the source of evidence for your line of
thinking. Recent discussions about analysis of tlhIngan Hol on this listserv
have called for submission of sources and reasonable attitude. I have
absolutely no problem with your attitude; you are giving your slant on the
subject. I thank you. Please provide sources for why you believe the way you
do. Unless you have a convincing argument, I am inclined to believe (but not
stubbornly) that the object of {ghojmoH} is a course, not a student.

Back to archive top level