[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[Rhona Fenwick]

I was going to say just what André said. SuStel's explanation is not in practice wrong, but I think it overcomplicates matters, and certainly I wouldn't analyse this as being a new exception. I too view it simply as a matter of valency count. Type 1 {-'egh} and {-chuq} decrease the verb's valency by one. Type 4 {-moH} increases it by one. The net result is that if the bare verb was bivalent (i.e. could take an object, valency 2), then the derivative with {-'eghmoH} can take an object: 2 (X) - 1 (-'egh) + 1 (-moH) = 2 (X-'eghmoH). Conversely, if the bare verb was univalent to begin with (i.e. couldn't normally take an object, like {Qong}, {QaQ}), then the derivative with {-'eghmoH} probably cannot take an object either. How would one shoehorn an explicit object into, say, {bel'eghmoH} "please oneself"?


QeS 'utlh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160728/2bd3a8c7/attachment.htm>