[tlhIngan Hol] Thoughts on {-moH}

[Lieven]

Am 08.12.2016 um 06:37 schrieb Anthony Appleyard:
> *torghvaD taj nob matlh 'e'* (cause) *Quj* , if we had a verb meaning
> "to cause" ???

I didn't read the rest of this discussion, but when I see you mention 
"verb meaning to cause" I immeditely think ", well what about {-moH}?"

making it two sentences makes it easy:
{matlh nobmoH Qugh.}
{torghvaD taj nob matlh.}

Okay, some may say that's cheating. We have other verbs:

{torghvaD taj nob matlh 'e' ra' Qugh}

The problem within this topic seems to be the direct and indirect object 
thing, isn't it?

What do you think about:
{torghvaD taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh}
having {nob} refer to two differetn objects?

I'm sure though that the following is grammatically clear:
{torghvaD taj nob matlh'e' nobmoHbogh Qugh}

taj is the object of the first {nob}, [matlh'e' nobmoHbogh Qugh] is the 
subject of the phrase, where the second {nob} takes {matlh} as the object.



-- 
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI
http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
http://www.klingonwiki.net