tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 24 11:40:12 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Canon: choH, tagh
> >Is there any canon or concensus regarding the transitivity
> >of {choH} and {tagh}?
>
> II (verb) "begin a process, initiate".
>
> Qu' DataghDI' 'aqtu' mellota' je yIqaw
> When you begin a mission, remember Aktuh and Mellota;
>
> tagh mu'qaD veS
> Curse-warfare has begun.
>
> choH (verb) "alter, change":
> HIvHe yIchoHmoH! Alter the attack course
> HoS choHwI' n. transtator (="thing which does change energy")
> woj choHwI' n. reactor (="thing which does change radiation")
>
> I think it's very obvious that both are transitive verbs.
oh?
> HIvHe yIchoHmoH! Alter the attack course
This is not transitive.
> tagh mu'qaD veS Curse-warfare has begun.
This is not transitive.
I don't remember hearing anything about tagh, but I have a memory of MO telling
us that choH works both transitively and intransitively. I don't remember the
source, it might have been on the news group. I was working on ghIlghameS at
the time and wanted to use that word but couldn't rememeber which way it worked
and I remember we concluded it worked both ways. If MO didn't tell us, then
maybe we drew this conclusion from the canon cited above.
With the words that work both ways, AFAIK there are no rules telling when to
use it which way.
DloraH, BG