tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 17 18:33:16 2008

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: A fun application of the "prefix trick"

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected]) [KLI Member]



--- On Wed, 9/17/08, Doq <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Second, don't start an old argument and claim that you
> aren't starting  
> an old argument. 

What I meant was, I will not waste bandwidth rehashing old arguments that can never be resolved by anything other than Okrand's intervention. However, that doesn't mean I will let someone speak as if the issue was settled, without a protest. If you are interested in my side of the debate, you can check here:
http://teresh.tdonnelly.org/kligramm.html

> 
> For all new students of the Klingon language, please note
> that there  
> is not a single instance of canon or any description from
> Okrand that  
> suggests that when you add {-moH} to a verb, it doesn't
> change the  
> direct object of the verb. 

There's also no suggestion anywhere that it does.

>This is wholly Ter'eS's
> idea. Maybe he has  
> convinced someone else here as well. If so, I'm sure
> we'll hear from  
> them.

ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj 'his sash reminds him of his heritage.' [Skybox card 20]

How would _you_ say "He remembers his heritage"?

> 
> Meanwhile, there are plenty of examples of {-moH} changing
> the direct  
> object of a verb. 

Please cite some.  We have several examples of intransitive verbs taking -moH and an object, but as far as I know, the above sentence is the only one where a transitive verb takes -moH _and_ has an object _and_ has a causee.

-- ter'eS





Back to archive top level