tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 30 12:58:35 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: choH vs. choHmoH

Andrà MÃller ([email protected]) 

I like your explanation, I thought of something like this too, but I'm not
sure if causativized transitive verbs ever worked like this. Such a verb
needs 3 arguments: the causer, the causee and the final direct object. I
don't know what strategy Klingon uses to mark the causee and the final
direct object, let alone the proper word order in such a phrase. I think we
don't have canon sentences for this...
David said that causativized transitive verbs work differently. I haven't
looked at them again... can't comment on that, but I believe he's right.
True, {choH} can be ambitransitive/labile (= transitive, or intransitive),
like many Klingon verbs. But then, that usually means that the verb is
inherently transitive, and when used intransitively, the direct object is
simply left out and the subject still stays the agent.
So, if {choH} is transitive, {He vIchoH} means "I change the course." while
{jIchoH} would mean "I change" (something unspecified), not in the sense of
"I undergo a change".

Maybe someone should ask MO? This is a serious issue, not a simple "How do
you say X in Klingon?" type o' question. :)

- André



2010/1/30 qurgh lungqIj <[email protected]>

> Could it be clipped Klingon for "Cause the ship's attack course to change"
> or "cause the ship to change attack course"?
> This is a battle situation and he's trying to get the helmsman to plot an
> intercept course to the shuttle that Kirk is on. He wants someone to make
> the ship move that way:
>
> (Duj) HIvHe yIchoHmoH - Cause the (ship's) attack course to change!
>
> Can't choH be both transitive and intransitive? Why does it have to be one
> or the other? I can change things myself or I can cause something else to
> change something. All the example phrases make sense to me and I see no
> conflict.
>
> qurgh
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM, André Müller <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > 2010/1/30 MorphemeAddict <[email protected]>
> > > {choH} seems simple enough to me. By itself it means intransitive
> > "change,
> > > *
> > > become* different", while {choHmoH} means transitive "change,
> > > *make*different,
> > > *cause to* be(come) different".
> > > lay'tel SIvten
> > >
> > >
> > But the canon phrases we have seem to contradict each other. Look at the
> > two
> > phrases Voragh gave for {choH}:
> >
> >  DaH Heraj yIchoH
> >  Alter your course now. (ST5 notes)
> >
> >  ghopDu' choHpu' Qe'
> >  The restaurant has altered hands. (KGT)
> >
> > The first one shows clearly that {choH} is transitive, the second one as
> > well (the English phrasing seems a little weird to me, does it mean that
> > the
> > restaurant got a different owner now?).
> >
> > Then there's that one single {choHmoH} phrase which indicates that
> > {choHmoH}
> > is the transitive verb.
> >
> > So either MO mixed something up, or we can assume the Klingon guy on the
> > ship made a mistake. Or a subtle distinction is involved, which we still
> > have to explore. It could also be the case that the two {choH} sentences
> > are
> > wrong and that {choH} is intransitive indeed.
> >
> > But it's not clear or simple at all from what we have, if {choH} or
> > {choHmoH} is the transitive Klingon verb for "to change something".
> >
> > - André
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Back to archive top level