tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 29 09:25:08 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: choH vs. choHmoH

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

On 1/29/2010 11:40 AM, André Müller wrote:
> I have a problem with the verb {choH}, which is translated as "alter,
> change" in the dictionary. As far as I know there are no canon sentences
> with this verb, so we don't know if it's transitive or intransitive.
> But according to some posting from Steven Boozer, there was a sentence used
> in Star Trek V, which was: {HIvHe yIchoHmoH!} ("Alter the attack course!").
> Here, the verb is combined with the causative suffix {-moH}, so obviously
> {choHmoH} is transitive and means "to alter/change something". Thus I
> conclude that {choH} must be intransitive, meaning "to become different".

I have been questioning the effects of {-moH} on transitivity lately, 
and I am not sure that the suffix automatically changes the transitivity 
of a verb. That is, I am not convinced that {-moH} always moves the 
agent or experiencer from subject to object. If {-moH} does not 
automatically do this, then we cannot be sure whether {choH} means 
"experience a change" or "cause something else to change," at least not 
just from that example.

There's a little voice in the back of my head that says we've seen 
another example of {choH}, without {-moH}, but I can't think of what it 
is. For some reason I seem to remember that it supported the idea that 
{-moH} doesn't automatically move semantic roles around.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

Back to archive top level