tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 02 17:50:34 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Transitivity of <mev> and <tagh>

David Trimboli ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Christopher Doty wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 16:31, David Trimboli <> wrote:
>> Christopher Doty wrote:
>>> This is cool!!  It is cool because (probably getting myself in trouble...):
>>> All of these examples have <-choH> attached to a verb that describes a
>>> state or a quality (often called in linguistics stative verbs).  It
>>> might well be that <-choH> marks an entrance into a specific state.
>>> The exception to this is for verbs of motion, but since Okrand
>>> specific states that <-choH> goes with verbs of motion, I think that's
>>> fine.  But where do we not see <-choH>? With verbs that actually
>>> describe an action (i.e., active verbs).  Thus, we might expect, with
>>> a verb like <HoH> to occur as <jIHoH 'e' vItagh> "I start killing
>>> stuff" rather than ??<jIHoHchoH>.
>>> Why is this totally cool? Because this distinction is damn near
>>> EXACTLY what you get in PNW languages: to start doing something is
>>> completely distinct from starting to BE something.
>>> I repeat.  COOL!
>> Until Okrand starts using <X 'e' vItagh> or something like it, the only
>> thing it indicates to me is that Okrand simply hasn't needed to talk
>> about starting with verbs of action. Without examples going one way or
>> the other, there's no reason to assume anything about {-choH} other than
>> what the book says.
> Again with going back and forth between going by what the book(s)
> say(s) and extrapolating...
> You'll also note that I didn't "assume" anything.  I said that "it may
> well be," not that is was or wasn't.

I do note that you said that. I didn't say you said anything wrong. I 
was stating general principles, not contradicting you.

tlhIngan Hol MUSH

Back to archive top level