tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 11 12:46:45 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: The years sometimes teach us what the days never know.

d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']


> qon ter'eS:
> >Then along came {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH}, and I really thought
> >we had our answer.  Here we had a transitive verb plus {-moH},
> >with an object and with a role for the noun compelled to
> >act, that didn't violate any existing grammar.  The object
> >of {qawmoH} was the same as one would expect for {qaw},
> >agreeing with TKD.  The use of {-vaD} to mark the one compelled
> >to act (which would be the subject of {qaw}) was a surprise,
> >but still didn't violate any existing grammar. It is truly
> >a mystery to me why this canon sentence has been so thoroughly
> >discounted for so long.

I have only vaguely been following this discussion, but I found an example
today that may add evidence to ter'eS's point of view.

HolQeD v2n4p17
{qogh tuQmoHHa'}
take off one's belt, slang for "to not hear"

Transitive verb {tuQ}, object would be clothing: {qogh vItuQ} "I wear a
belt."  Add {-moH}, and the object is still the clothing: {qogh tuQmoHHa'}.
For example, {qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'}, "I've taken off my belt; your secret is
safe with me."

I haven't thought about this issue much (recently), and if there's a side to
take, I'm not taking it (yet).  Just posting what I found.

--Holtej

Back to archive top level