[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[André Müller]

It's neither an exception nor something new. I don't think (m)any of us
would be surprised about this sentence. While {-chuq} reduces the valency,
making a transitive verb intransitive, {-moH}, being a causative suffix,
increases the valency by adding another argument. Intransitive verbs become
transitive, and transitive verbs actually remain transitive, but another
oblique argument is added (see the famous example with Worf's sash).

Now, any verb with {-chuq} is by definition intransitive, so adding {-moH}
naturally makes it transitive again, turning the meaning into something
like "S makes O verb each other". I don't recall if I have ever used these
two suffixes together, but their use seems quite natural to me and I
would've formed the sentence the same way.

Schematically:
S verbs. (intransitive, e.g. {'IH})
S verbs O. (transitive, e.g. {legh})
S&S verb each other. (reciprocal, e.g. {leghchuq})
S makes O&O verb each other. (reciprocal+causative, e.g. {leghchuqmoH})

S&S and O&O I just use to show that they must in some way refer to plural
entities.

I don't quite see what's new about it. But perhaps I just always assumed
that it works this way and am thus not surprised about this sentence.

- André

2016-07-28 15:18 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:

> On 7/28/2016 2:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> read this :
>
> Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS
> kahless united the tribes of kronos
>
> ..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
>
> according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix
> must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq}
> can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the
> recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and
> then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
>
> now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the
> {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the
> combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
>
>
> Good catch! I think you may have just discovered a bit of supporting
> evidence for a new grammar exception. (For those who don't know, this
> sentence comes from *paq'batlh.*)
>
> Apparently, the rules governing *-chuq*—that it is only used with plural
> subjects and that it always uses a no-object prefix—only apply when the
> semantic agents of the action (those who perform the action the verb
> describes) are the subjects of the verb. When something else is the
> subject—in this case the *-moH* tells us that the subject *causes* the
> verb instead of performing it—those rules are ignored.
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160728/7f643a46/attachment.htm>