tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 07 17:59:13 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: The meaning of -moH

MorphemeAddict (MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com) [KLI Member] [Hol taghwI']



In a message dated 10/7/2009 20:29:31 Eastern Daylight Time, 
doq@embarqmail.com writes:

> Starting with the vague memory of having read that a long time ago, I  
> combined that with the definitions:
> 
> tlhob: [TKD: ask], [TKD appendix: request, ask, plead]
> 
> ghel: [KGT: ask (a question)]
> 
> The definition suggests that the direct object of {ghel} should be a  
> question and not a person.
> 
> We have examples of the use of {tlhob} with persons as the direct  
> object, and also with sentences as its direct object. I know of no  
> canon that uses a person as the direct object of {ghel}, though there  
> may very well be some.
> 
> So, you are right that {tlhob} means to plead or request, but you are  
> not exclusively right, since there are examples of it being used for  
> the "question" related meaning of "ask" as well, despite how neat and  
> well organized it would be if it didn't sometimes have that meaning.
> 
> Doq
> 

{tlhob} had the meaning of {ghel} only up until {ghel} was introduced by 
Okrand. 
As for "question" being the direct object of {ghel}, the note "(a 
question)" after "ask" is only to disambiguate the meanings of "ask", not to suggest 
its normal object. The form of disambiguation is itself ambiguous, of 
course. Okrand doesn't explain how the notes in parentheses are to be interpreted; 
he just uses them as if it were clear what he meant. Another example is 
"qI' - sign (a treaty)" (TKD1K, TKD2E).

lay'tel SIvten






Back to archive top level