tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 30 15:26:56 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]) 

Thanks for the explanation. I read through it and everything makes sense. Up
to the part with {ghoj}:
2010/1/30 David Trimboli <[email protected]>

> [...]

   Hol vIghoj
>    I learn the language
>
>    Hol vIghojmoH
>    I cause-to-learn the language
>    I teach the language
>
>    tera'nganvaD Hol vIghojmoH
>    I cause-to-learn the language for the Terran
>    I teach the language to the Terran
>
>
This is logically deductable from what you wrote beforehand and from the
canonical heritage-sentence. A problem here might be the single(?) canon
sentence that we have for {ghojmoH}:

batlh qaghojmoHpu'.
«It has been an honor to instruct you.»

I didn't write down the source, perhaps it's from KCD or the audio course...

Here, the direct object of the verb {ghojmoH} is not the object being taught
but the recipient of the action. Can this be explained away by the prefix
trick? Or what do you suggest?



> {-moH} can even be applied to action verbs whose subject and object
> don't undergo any subsequent semantic change:
>
>    He wIghoS
>    we follow the course
>
>    He wIghoSmoH
>    we cause-to-follow the course
>    we follow the course (and this is a change of condition that we
>       initiated)
>
> In that example, nothing is said in the former sentence of how long
> we've been following the course or how the course was initiated. In the
> latter sentence the only effect of {-moH} is to make it explicit that we
> caused a change of condition, from not following the course to following
> it. This is the whole point of {-moH}, as defined for us on TKD p. 38.
> "Adding this suffix indicates that the subject is causing a change of
> condition or causing a new condition to come into existence."
>
>
Although this seems odd, it logically follows indeed.

In the upper example, with "remember", the {-moH} turns the verb into "cause
to be remembered", and the "by..." part can be added with {-vaD}.
Here, the likewise transitive verb "follow" would become "cause to be
followed (by)". So {He wIghoSmoH} means "We cause the course to be
followed.". This should indeed be grammatical in Klingon, but I would
definitely avoid such phrases.
One might even add "maHvaD" in front, to form something literally meaning
"We cause the course to be followed by us."

This is odd. I'd rather use other means to show the subtle semantic
difference between this sentence and the usual {He wIghoS}. Do you agree?

Oh, wait! In the sentence {He wIghoS}, it's clear that the speakers are
following the course, i.e. "we".
In {He wIghoSmoH}, the "we" are the ones who cause the course to be followed
but the sentence doesn't overtly express, who will follow the course.
Technically, someone else entirely could follow the course, and if one wants
to express that, one might even add {SoHvaD} to the front, hence: "We cause
the course to be followed by you.", or less literally: "We send you on the
course."

I'm just checking, if I understood you right.


> > 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".
>
> Er, no I didn't say that at all.
>
>
Yeah, now that I took the time to look at it more closely, I understand your
point and agree.



> > Maybe someone should ask MO? This is a serious issue, not a simple "How
> do
> > you say X in Klingon?" type o' question.:)
>
> It's been an open question for years and years, though my perspective of
> it has changed radically only recently.
>
>
I meant specifically about the {choH} thing.
We have two parallel {choH} sentences, and when I remove the unnecessary
stuff, we have:

He yIchoH! = Alter the course!
He yIchoHmoH! = Alter the course!

The last sentence would then literally be "Cause the course to be altered.",
in German this could be "Lass [jemanden] den Kurs ändern!" (Let [so.] change
the course!), and even "Ich lasse [jemanden] Klingonisch lernen." (I let
[so.] learn Klingon.). The true agent who alters the course is not stated,
in the context it could be the engines or an engineer.

But then

That would indeed make very much sense. If I got you right, I have to add
some explanation to my dictionary now.

One more question:
lay'tel SIvten / Morpheme Addict said that {choH} for him is clearly
intransitive. The two sentences we have with the verb clearly show that it
can't be intransitive (only), because it doesn't have the meaning "undergo a
change", but only "change something". So the verb is at least agentive, and
stays that way even if one uses a no-object prefix. Hence, {jIchoH} means
that I change something else in general, and not that I undergo any change
myself. Right?
For a true intransitive verb meaning "undergo a change", maybe {moj}
(become) might be the best option.

Thanks for the explanations,
- André

Back to archive top level