tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 05 19:42:20 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chenmoH/mojmoH (was Re: Klingon WOTD: cho' (verb))
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: chenmoH/mojmoH (was Re: Klingon WOTD: cho' (verb))
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 22:42:03 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 11/5/2005 7:27:39 PM Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> Until new canon shows otherwise, I'll assume
> that {moj} is used only with people, and that {mojmoH} isn't
> synonymous with {chenmoH}, but may be synonymous with pronoun +
> {-choH}.
>
>
> -- Stephen Carter
> [email protected]
Wouldn't they have different usages? The subject and object of {mojmoH}
would be person A causing person B to become (thing/person C (e.g., position,
title)), whereas the subject and 'object' (it's not really an object) of pronoun +
{-choH} would be person B who becomes/starts to be thing/person C. In the
former there is no indication of what B becomes, while in the latter there is no
distinct agent responsible for the change.
lay'tel SIvten