[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[SuStel]

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.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160728/aed1995f/attachment-0017.htm>