[tlhIngan Hol] The {-chuqmoH}

[mayqel qunenoS]

maj.

However, lets return to the {-chuqmoH}. We have the canon sentence
{Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS}.

As you wrote: "There are two ways to interpret muvchuqmoH:
[muvchuq]moH he (singular subject) causes them (plural object) to join
each other and [muv]chuq[moH] they (plural, reflexive subject) cause
each other to join."

So, if I understand correctly what has been explained so far, then the
following two sentences are correct:

{verengan Duj vIHIvchuqmoH jIH}
I caused the ferengi ships to attack each other

{HIvchuqmoH verengan Duj}
the ferengi ships caused each other to attack each other

But if I wrote:

{verengan Duj luHIvchuqmoH cha' Duj nov}
two alien ships caused each other to attack the ferengi ship

{verengan Duj DIHIvchuqmoH maH tlhIH je}
We and you caused each other to attack the ferengi ships

Then both of these sentences are wrong.

Is my understanding correct ?

qunnoq

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:24 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 8/29/2017 10:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> SuStel:
>
> So what I said is true... when you're dealing with verbs that don't take
> objects. If the verb does
> allow an object, then the "doers" of the verb, whether the subject or
> object, can do the verb to each other.
>
> Thank you for explaining this; as soon as I read the {Qo'noS tuqmey
> muvchuqmoH qeylIS} I was about to ask about it.
>
> However, reading the canon sentences, I noted something else which
> seems a little strange:
>
> muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch
> All his rage focused in one blow  (PB)
>
> If I was to translate the original klingon sentence, then I would
> write "while he was striking, all of his anger made itself together".
> But since we have the {tay'}, then shouldn't there be two subjects (at
> least) which would be/made together ?
>
> Let's remove the extraneous material. tay' QeH the anger is together. This
> is apparently a valid meaning of tay'; it doesn't require multiple subjects
> that are together. You can think of it as anger consisting of multiple
> parts, which have been gathered into one.
>
> Note that I would never understand tay' QeH standing all on its own; it's a
> metaphor that only makes sense in context. Don't take this example to mean
> that Klingons consider anger to consist of multiple parts. This is only a
> metaphor in a poem.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>