[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[mayqel qunenoS]

ok, De'vID thank you !

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 July 2016 at 08:45, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> 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.
>
> That's exactly it: {-chuq} and {-moH} together.
>
> Consider any verb which doesn't take an object, say {jor}.
>
> {jor bIH} "they explode"
> {bIH vIjormoH} "I explode them", "I cause them to explode"
>
> The same thing is happening here with {muvchuq}.
>
> {muvchuq chaH} "they join each other"
> {chaH vImuvchuq} "I unite them", "I cause them to join each other"
>
> It's a fairly straightforward interaction of two verb suffixes.
>
> --
> De'vID
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org