tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 30 17:39:07 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: The meaning of -moH

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

I wrote:
> However, this means we have an odd situation: verbs like {tuH} "be 
> ashamed" should not be able to take objects, yet verbs like {tuHmoH} 
> "shame" certainly are able to do so. Why do verbs of quality seem to 
> change the semantic role of the object while verbs of action do not?

Or perhaps verbs of quality are not syntactically distinguished from
verbs of action, but only semantically. In other words, the only reason
you don't see objects on straight verbs of quality is not that it's
syntactically invalid, but that they just don't make sense there. But as
soon as the -moH suffix is added, the meaning includes a semantically
good reason for an object.

David Trimboli

Back to archive top level