[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[SuStel]

"This suffix is used only with plural subjects. It is translated /each 
other/ or /one another./ The prefix set indicating 'no object' is also 
used when this suffix is used."

Exception.

The combination of *-chuq* and *-moH* have never been used prior to 
/paq'batlh/, and no one on this list has ever pointed it out before mayqel.

New.

As far as valency and transitivity go, you can analyze Klingon sentences 
like that, but I don't think Okrand thinks of them that way, and they 
don't help predict unusual grammar. Those are semantic tools; Okrand is 
obeying syntax and letting the semantics take care of themselves. The 
subject *qeylIS* is performing an action; the direct object *Qo'noS 
tuqmey* is having something done to it. Syntax, without regard to 
meaning. That the houses are being made to join each other is irrelevant 
to the placement of the subject and object. What's new and exceptional 
is the verb's rule-breaking situation.


On 7/28/2016 10:29 AM, André Müller wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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.
>


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160728/27a50e01/attachment-0018.htm>