tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 30 13:11:31 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: choH vs. choHmoH

Lucas Big-Guy ([email protected]) 

I agree, it's not just something of the top of your head.
L.

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:57 PM, André Müller <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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