[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[mayqel qunenoS]

HIvqa' veqlargh !

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

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:47 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> .. 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