Re: Klingon WOTD: qawmoH (v)

[Teresh000@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/18/2002 3:21:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, cheesbro@rpa.net 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

http:\\www.geocities.com\teresh_2000