[86605] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The meaning of -moH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Wed Sep 30 20:39:24 2009
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:37:51 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <4AC3F650.7060304@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I wrote:
> However, this means we have an odd situation: verbs like {tuH} "be
> ashamed" should not be able to take objects, yet verbs like {tuHmoH}
> "shame" certainly are able to do so. Why do verbs of quality seem to
> change the semantic role of the object while verbs of action do not?
Or perhaps verbs of quality are not syntactically distinguished from
verbs of action, but only semantically. In other words, the only reason
you don't see objects on straight verbs of quality is not that it's
syntactically invalid, but that they just don't make sense there. But as
soon as the -moH suffix is added, the meaning includes a semantically
good reason for an object.
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
