tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 01 12:53:45 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {-moH} and transitive verbs (was RE: pIqaD)

ghItlh ghunchu'wI':

> Or, if you don't mind treading on slightly controversial ground, you can
> follow the example from Skybox card S20, {Ha'quj} "Klingon Sash":
> 
>     qorDu'Daj tuq 'oS Ha'quje'e' tuQbogh wo'rIv. tuQtaHvIS Hem.
>     ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH.
> 
>     The sash that Worf wears is a symbol of his family's house.
>     He wears it proudly as a reminder of his heritage.
> 
> The last sentence in Klingon is the relevant one.  The structure keeps the
> same object for the verb and places {-vaD} on the recipient of the
> causation.
> 
> The pattern doesn't work clearly with every verb.  Sometimes different
> people interpret the same words in opposite ways.  It's only "safe" when
> the recipient roles are unmistakeable, as in the Skybox example where "he"
> can remember "his heritage" but not the other way around.
>

Actually, I think it's pretty easy to use if you just
assume that the subject of the original transitive
verb gets displaced to the {-vaD} position when you
add {-moH}.  It's usually clear what the subject of
the un-moH'ed transitive verb is.  Adding -moH adds
a new subject to the phrase, but doesn't (it seems to
me) have any effect on the original object of the
transitive verb, so the displaced subject is the one
we have to account for.

paq nob vav > vavvaD paq nobmoH SoS.
Father gives a book > Mother makes Father give a book.

Of course, if the original transitive verb already has
a beneficiary with -vaD, then all bets are off:

puqvaD paq nob vav > ????

Too bad Okrand didn't use 'e', as Qanqor once suggested,
sort of like the Japanese topic marker wa:

*vav'e' puqvaD paq nobmoH SoS
As for Father, Mother caused him to give the child a book.


> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level