[112039] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] To -choH, to -'eghmoH, or to nothing ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Mar 4 13:03:47 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:03:43 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cLfq0fjQkZc=hwhWmOREwr5gqXp1mTmtLg4VazrHkkAkg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3881626934693415987==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------6EA5513CD44920D518B5AA7F"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------6EA5513CD44920D518B5AA7F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 3/4/2019 9:40 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> In imperatives, sometimes we see in Ca'NoN {-'eghmoH}, and sometimes
> we see {-choH}. For example: {yItam'eghmoH} or {yItamchoH}.
>
> I don't know, if there is a Ca'NoN example of using just the verb,
> e.g. {yItam}, but regardless whether there is indeed such a case or
> not, I wonder..
>
> Should anyone choose whatever he likes ? Is there something of the
> three (-'eghmoH, - choH, or none at all), one should necessarily use
> in an imperative ?
We see all forms. I don't think Okrand made up his mind about *-'egh +
-moH* until KGT, so some earlier words violate it. I also think *'egh +
-moH* may not apply to every imperative on every /be-/verb; it's used
for things you have to actively do yourself, even if that's only a
grammatical pretext. I don't think *-choH* necessarily negates the need
for *-'egh* and *-moH.*
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------6EA5513CD44920D518B5AA7F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/4/2019 9:40 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLfq0fjQkZc=hwhWmOREwr5gqXp1mTmtLg4VazrHkkAkg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">In imperatives, sometimes we see in Ca'NoN {-'eghmoH}, and sometimes
we see {-choH}. For example: {yItam'eghmoH} or {yItamchoH}.
I don't know, if there is a Ca'NoN example of using just the verb,
e.g. {yItam}, but regardless whether there is indeed such a case or
not, I wonder..
Should anyone choose whatever he likes ? Is there something of the
three (-'eghmoH, - choH, or none at all), one should necessarily use
in an imperative ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>We see all forms. I don't think Okrand made up his mind about <b>-'egh
+ -moH</b> until KGT, so some earlier words violate it. I also
think <b>'egh + -moH</b> may not apply to every imperative on
every <i>be-</i>verb; it's used for things you have to actively
do yourself, even if that's only a grammatical pretext. I don't
think <b>-choH</b> necessarily negates the need for <b>-'egh</b>
and <b>-moH.</b><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------6EA5513CD44920D518B5AA7F--
--===============3881626934693415987==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============3881626934693415987==--
