tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 07 22:53:32 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: A -moH suggestion

ja' SuStel:
>Now, thinking in Klingon only (don't cast anything in terms of an English
>version of the sentence), come up with a controversial question.  How do you
>say . . . what?  Well, if I could say it, it wouldn't be a controversy.  And
>if I can't say it, then I can't say it.  But never do I come up with an
>example sentence that I can't say.

Do you consider {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} to be uncontroversial?

>...The problem could very well be only a problem if you start from
>English and work your way to Klingon.

qechvam vIlaj vIneH, 'ach...

>It may not show up at all if you start out in Klingon.

Sure it does.

jISoplaH.  Soj vISoplaH.  nuv vISopmoHlaH, qar'a'?  'ach nuv vISopmoHDI',
Soj vIbuSHa'nIS'a'?  Ha'quj mu'tlhegh vIpabchugh, nuvvaD Soj vISopmoH.
qay'a'?  HIja', loQ qay'law'.  pay' pIm Doch vISopmoHbogh.

>Thus my post.  Maybe it's not that Klingon hasn't been able to
>satisfactorily answer our questions about ditransitivity.  Maybe the problem
>is that we've been asking the wrong questions.

jIghelmeH tlhIngan Hol vIlo'laH.  SaHtaH Seng.


I still have my pet theory about how {-moH} doesn't *really* change the
object of a verb, and how what comes out as {puq vIghojmoH} is really a
variation on the prefix trick applied to {puqvaD jIghojmoH}.  It explains
*every* {-moH} example I can think of, including the apparently anomalous
definition of {tuQmoH}, but it does so at the expense of complicating the
explanation of how simple things like {bIrmoH} work.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level