[87753] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: choH vs. choHmoH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lucas Big-Guy)
Sat Jan 30 12:17:38 2010
In-Reply-To: <6038b7231001300910u196d4c0fw3d5d84891547ee8@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Big-Guy <asdfgh746@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:14:59 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Perhaps it is representing a change of staff. (shift change)
We have to remember that no language is straight out simple. We do have to
figure for something here.
L.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:10 PM, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2010/1/30 MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com>
> > {choH} seems simple enough to me. By itself it means intransitive
> "change,
> > *
> > become* different", while {choHmoH} means transitive "change,
> > *make*different,
> > *cause to* be(come) different".
> > lay'tel SIvten
> >
> >
> But the canon phrases we have seem to contradict each other. Look at the
> two
> phrases Voragh gave for {choH}:
>
> DaH Heraj yIchoH
> Alter your course now. (ST5 notes)
>
> ghopDu' choHpu' Qe'
> The restaurant has altered hands. (KGT)
>
> The first one shows clearly that {choH} is transitive, the second one as
> well (the English phrasing seems a little weird to me, does it mean that
> the
> restaurant got a different owner now?).
>
> Then there's that one single {choHmoH} phrase which indicates that
> {choHmoH}
> is the transitive verb.
>
> So either MO mixed something up, or we can assume the Klingon guy on the
> ship made a mistake. Or a subtle distinction is involved, which we still
> have to explore. It could also be the case that the two {choH} sentences
> are
> wrong and that {choH} is intransitive indeed.
>
> But it's not clear or simple at all from what we have, if {choH} or
> {choHmoH} is the transitive Klingon verb for "to change something".
>
> - André
>
>
>
