[tlhIngan Hol] -chuqmoH & -'eghmoH

David Holt kenjutsuka at live.com
Fri Dec 28 21:20:38 PST 2018


________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of Daniel Dadap <daniel at dadap.net>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 8:44 PM
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -chuqmoH & -'eghmoH



On Dec 28, 2018, at 17:48, David Holt <kenjutsuka at live.com<mailto:kenjutsuka at live.com>> wrote:

How about with {-'eghmoH} to say something/someone makes them do the verb to themself? (Possible example: {puq Say''eghmoH SoS}.)  Any evidence of that sort of construction?

> Say''eghmoH SoS makes sense. A mother makes herself clean. The puq as an object there doesn’t. But I guess it does fit the
> pattern with muvchuqmoH.

In which case it would mean, "The mother makes the child clean themself."

What about using {'egh} with {-moH} on a verb with no object to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb? (Possible example: {nguv'eghmoH DIjwI'}.)  Do we have any evidence of that?  What do you think of using it that way?

> Isn’t -'eghmoH already the recommended way to make a command out of a verb of quality? If it works for a command, I feel like
> it should work in the example above too.

Good point.  That is strong evidence for this pattern.
And how about using {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb, saying that they cause each other to do/be the main verb?  (Possible example: {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'}.)  Do we have any evidence of that?  What do you think of using it that way?

> That seems fine to me if you think of it as rIQmoH with a -chuq, in contrast to thinking of muvchuqmoH as muvchuq with a -moH.
> I think the dual possibilities are a consequence of the strict ordering of the suffixes.

It's the {-moH} itself that seems to be causing the dual possibilities.  When we use a {-moH} on a verb that does not have an object, the subject of that verb slides into the object position.  But when we use a {-moH} on a verb that does have an object, the object of that verb stays the object and the subject of that verb apparently gets marked with {-vaD}.  Thus most verbs with {-moH} have at least the potential of two objects.  But since the type 1 suffix does not appear as an actual object, the question is which one of the objects is the type 1 suffix trying to fulfill?

Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20181229/3da09f17/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list