tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 08 15:51:59 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Klingon WOTD: chaQ (verb)

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: chaQ (verb)
• Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:51:03 EST

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2005-02-08 5:24:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:


> >Remember that with double-predicate causative verbs, if there's only one
> >predicate present it can be either the person or thing who is made to do the
> >action *or* the person or thing ultimately affected by the action. Either
> >can stand as the object. In {qogh vItuQHa'moHpu'}, you can either interpret
> >it as is (which makes no semantic sense),
> 
> But it is consistent with the {poSmoH} example below:  what is opened or 
> removed is the "natural" object of the verbs, with or without {-Ha'}:
> 
>    yIvbeHwIj vIpoSmoH.
>    I opened my blouse.
> 
>    yIvbeHwIj vItuQmoH.
>    I put my blouse on.
> 
>    qoghDaj tuQmoH.
>    He put his belt on.
> 
>    qoghDaj tuQHa'moH.
>    He took his belt off.
> 
> 
> Voragh

The {poSmoH} example is not valid.  {poS} is a state verb; it takes no object 
of its own.  Thus adding {-moH} can add only one object: the thing opened.

Despite {raD}, I still like {'e' qaSmoH} for 'cause'.

lay'tel SIvten

• Prev by Date: Re: Pronunciation of " Qapla' "
• Next by Date: tuQ vs tuQmoH (was Re: Klingon WOTD: chaQ (verb))
• Previous by thread: RE: Klingon WOTD: chaQ (verb)
• Next by thread: qech lugh ghaj latlh vay'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level