Re: A -moH suggestion

[willm@cstone.net]

qavuvchu' 'ach maQoch.

While it is possible for the "prefix shortcut" to be used when the indirect 
object is first or second person and the direct object is third person, that 
has nothing to do with the subject. When you use {-moH}, the subject is the 
agent of causation, not the agent of the action of the verb root.

Your first example is fine, but the second one is definitely controversial if 
not simply wrong.

jatlh Qov:
> muleghmoHlaH Hergh

{Hergh} is the subject. The direct object is first person singular. No problem.

> and
> qaleghmoHlaH Hergh

The subject in the prefix {qa-} of this second example is apparently first 
person singular, but what is {Hergh} doing there?

There's nothing in canon to suggest this is okay. The only way I know how to 
say "The medicine causes me to be able to see you," is:

muleghmoHlaHmo' Hergh qalegh.

"I see you because the medicine makes me able to see."

> which introduces the new problem (new to this particular posting, not new 
> to Klingonists) of whether muleghmoHlaH means "enables me to see" or "has 
> the ability to make me see."

Yep. That is a problem. There is the temptation to believe that it definitely 
means "is able to make me see" because of the way that true floaters modify 
what preceeds them and extend that to other suffixes, but because of the 
inflexibility of the order of normal suffixes, that's not the case.

There is no easy way to disambiguate these two meanings for this one sentence. 
There is no easy recasting for the two different meanings, unless someone else 
thinks of something I don't see.

> Now I will go away.

'e' vItulHa'.

charghwI'