tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 19 09:46:32 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: qawmoH (v)

In a message dated 11/18/2002 3:21:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

> > >    tuQtaHvIS Hem. ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH.
> > >    He wears it proudly as a reminder of his heritage. S20
> > 
> > Whoa, did anyone catch this application of direct object/indirect object
> > with qawmoH?  I just saw this in the thread on Complex Sentences,
> > using this exact example:
> ...
> > Here, however, we see more of the application of { qaw } with the usual
> > application of { -moH }, where the usual subject of the verb is now
> > treated as the object, to reflect the causal relation.  { qaw quHDaj }
> > "His heritage is remembered" { quHDaj qawmoH 'oH } "It causes his heritage
> > to be remembered" { ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH } "It causes his heritage to
> > be remembered for him/It reminds him of his heritage".
> But see how you are changing the definition from "remember" to "be remembered".
> With "remember" the subject is doing the action.
> With "be remembered" the subject is receiving the action.

FWIW, there are some of this who found this phrase significant, and maybe
the key to the entire "transitivity with {-moH}" problem. But we were
never able to achieve concensus.

> And this goes on and on.  Blood has already been spilled over this one.  Let's 
> not dig up the horse's decaying carcass so we can get in one more kick.

Blood was indeed spilled, with plenty of blame on both sides of the argument.
I'm still not convinced I was wrong, but there is simply too little evidence
to be conclusive either way.  Without new examples or a direct statement
from MO, continued discussion of this point can only be a source of conflict.

> ...Which is why I offered two sentences; both grammatically 
> correct.

Avoiding the construction is the only safe way to proceed!

> DloraH

-- ter'eS


Back to archive top level