[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[mayqel qunenoS]

what about the :

{vIqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself".

is it acceptable ?

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Terrence Donnelly
<terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Why not just {muvmoH}, then? What does {-chuq} add to it? "Cause to unite"
> v. "cause to unite each other"? The latter almost sounds like they unite
> without Kahless as the impetus for their union.
>
> ter'eS
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: André Müller <esperantist at gmail.com>
> To: "tlhingan-hol at kli.org" <tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?
>
> 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.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>