[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[mayqel qunenoS]

.. I came back.

In the spirit of what we just said, would you accept

{qaqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself" ?

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:35 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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