tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 19 01:37:09 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

two-way transitivity?

ja' SuStel:
>"Two-way" verbs:
>mev X
>X stops
>X mev Y
>Y stops X
>tagh X
>X begins
>X tagh Y
>Y begins X

I can provide justification/explanation/rationalization for {mev} and
{tagh} actually being unremarkable verbs with specific "one-way"
transitivity.  I can't claim with certainty that my interpretation is
correct, but I want to let everyone know what I like to think about them.

If we start with the idea that {tagh} is transitive and that the subject is
causing something to start, then {tagh X} is actually "X begins [doing
something unstated]".  This is perfectly in line with the definition "begin
(a process)".  A similar argument applies to {mev}, with {mev X}
interpreted as "X stops [doing something unstated]", although we have to
see the "cease" part of the definition as relevant only when there is no
stated object.

>So' X
>X hides
>X So' Y
>Y hides X

This one is more troublesome to dismiss as exceptional, yes.

>There are certainly more (/pegh/ and /meQ/ require lengthy discussions).

{pegh} for sure; that's a weirdness that I accept even while I wish it
didn't exist. :)  But I think {meQ} can be debated (albeit weakly) as a
transitive verb, with the "burning house" phrase meaning not "house which
is on fire" but "house which makes things too hot".

>There are also lots of words we don't know about yet.  (tlhe', DIng, for

It's usually easier to assume they are reflexive/intransitive, and use
{-moH} to get the other possible meaning.  As you say, though, we really
don't know yet -- {Dub} as transitive surprised many of us.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level