[86624] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The meaning of -moH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Mon Oct 5 18:57:40 2009
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4ACA30C8.4010701@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 18:55:16 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I'm not sure we've ever seen the prefix trick used without an explicit
third-person direct object. The whole thing that makes the prefix
trick work for me is the obvious mismatch between the prefix and the
explicit direct object.
It may be that the prefix works just as well without the presence of a
direct object, but I've never noticed a case of this.
Doq
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:45 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> David Trimboli wrote:
>> We have one sentence, {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH}, which supports either
>> argument (my god, I never thought I'd be pleased with that
>> sentence). If
>> there is a canonical sentence of the form {puq ghojmoH yaS} my
>> hypothesis would be in doubt. Is there one?
>
> I found one, but it's completely ambiguous. The end of Power Klingon
> has
> {batlh qaghojmoH}. Unfortunately, this could be either {batlh SoHvaD
> vIghojmoH} or {batlh SoH qaghojmoH} by the prefix trick (or even
> {SoHvaD
> batlh vIghojmoH} "I teach you honor," though we know that's not what
> was
> intended).
>
> (Conversational Klingon also has {batlh qaghojmoHpu'}, which doesn't
> change anything.)
>
> --
> SuStel
> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> http://trimboli.name/mush
>
>
>
