Re: ghojmoH

[Andrew Strader <strader@decode.is>]

Clayton Rodrigo Cardoso wrote:
>But what if I want to say something like this:
>I'll teach you a new word.

I grepped for "moH" in all of the canon (compliments to Zrajm for making that 
possible), and here's what I came up with:

tkd:    {HIQoymoH} <let me hear> (something) ({Qoy} <hear>)

This proves that -moH can be suffixed to transitive verbs, such as Qoy. We 
know that Qoy is transitive because of the following two examples.

kgt-phr:        {De'vetlh vIQoy, vaj jIQuch}    I am happy to hear that 
information     147

tkw-phr:        {'IwlIj ghogh yIQoy.}   Listen to the voice of your blood.    
  [TKW p.31]

Ok, so now what? All it shows us is the following pattern (1).

PATIENT VERB AGENT
--> AGENT VERB+moH CAUSAL_AGENT

But then how do you keep the patient in there, if it's important? Well, there 
is one Skybox example worth noting.

--------------------------
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.

[From (season four) SkyBox card S20 as reproduced in HQ 5:2 p.14]
--------------------------

Taking into consideration Okrand's habit of translating two Klingon sentences 
with one in English, we ought to consider "ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH" to mean "it 
reminds him of his heritage", or more literally, "it makes him remember his 
heritage". This sentence seems to demonstrate a slightly different pattern 
(2).

PATIENT VERB AGENT
--> AGENT+vaD PATIENT VERB+moH CAUSAL_AGENT

Now an obvious question: Why are there two different patterns? Well, I know 
some people have speculated that maybe what's going on is simply that -vaD is 
being elided. We see elision of both -vaD and -Daq in several canonical 
instances. It seems that a general rule to infer from this is something like 
"indirect objects (viz., benefactives and locatives) are often syntactically 
promoted to direct object status when the 'real' direct object is not 
explicit." The inference of this rule is also somewhat supported by the odd 
use of the verb prefix in sentences like "ghIchlIj qanob". So it might be 
that pattern 1 is just an abbreviated form of pattern 2. Even if that wasn't 
the case, tlhIngan Hol (or any language with a productive causative) would 
need to fill an expressive void, and the second pattern would do it nicely.

lI'be' QumnISwI'pu' toy'be'bogh Hol'e', 'ej 'oH lucherghQo' chaH, luchoHpa' 
pagh luwoDpa'. yap tlhIngan Hol, qar, 'ach yapmoHba' 'Iv? {{:-)

So, to finally answer your question in light of what I've just shown here, 
both of the following seem perfectly reasonable:

"SoHvaD mu' chu' vIghojmoH"
"mu' chu' qaghojmoH"