tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 29 15:37:10 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: choH vs. choHmoH
Okay. I guess I have to look at the data again, some day. Or that discussion
from back then.
Greetings,
- André
2010/1/29 David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> On 1/29/2010 4:24 PM, André Müller wrote:
> > 2010/1/29 David Trimboli<[email protected]>
> >>
> >> If the interpretation were correct, it would look like this:
> >>
> >> He yIchoH
> >> Change the course!
> >>
> >> He yIchoHmoH
> >> Be the cause of you changing the course!
> >>
> >>
> > Hmm, shouldn't that sentence translate rather as "Let the course change
> > it/sth.!"? The verb's not reflexive, so the subject/causer cannot be the
> > object here. If {choH} means change (the transitive verb), then "choHmoH"
> > would mean "cause sth. to change sth.", thus, in {He yIchoHmoH} you order
> > the course itself to change something else.
>
> That was exactly the point of my investigation earlier. Whenever {-moH}
> is used with (apparently) transitive verbs, it doesn't follow the
> pattern [Verb A] --> [A VerbmoH B] like verbs of quality. Instead it
> looks like [B Verb A] ("A verbs B") --> [B VerbmoH A] ("A verbs B and
> was the direct cause of that action").
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>
>
>
>