[87737] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: choH vs. choHmoH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Fri Jan 29 12:26:21 2010
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:23:45 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <6038b7231001290840j7c20a41dwe8ee1f1e036a6ea8@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On 1/29/2010 11:40 AM, André Müller wrote:
> I have a problem with the verb {choH}, which is translated as "alter,
> change" in the dictionary. As far as I know there are no canon sentences
> with this verb, so we don't know if it's transitive or intransitive.
> But according to some posting from Steven Boozer, there was a sentence used
> in Star Trek V, which was: {HIvHe yIchoHmoH!} ("Alter the attack course!").
> Here, the verb is combined with the causative suffix {-moH}, so obviously
> {choHmoH} is transitive and means "to alter/change something". Thus I
> conclude that {choH} must be intransitive, meaning "to become different".
I have been questioning the effects of {-moH} on transitivity lately,
and I am not sure that the suffix automatically changes the transitivity
of a verb. That is, I am not convinced that {-moH} always moves the
agent or experiencer from subject to object. If {-moH} does not
automatically do this, then we cannot be sure whether {choH} means
"experience a change" or "cause something else to change," at least not
just from that example.
There's a little voice in the back of my head that says we've seen
another example of {choH}, without {-moH}, but I can't think of what it
is. For some reason I seem to remember that it supported the idea that
{-moH} doesn't automatically move semantic roles around.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
