[tlhIngan Hol] -chuqmoH & -'eghmoH

[De'vID]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 06:14 Daniel Dadap <daniel at dadap.net wrote:

>
>
> On Dec 28, 2018, at 17:48, David Holt <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.
>

Two verbs to consider here are {tuQ} and {tatlh}. {tuQmoH} and {tatlh'egh}
are lexicalised, so it's instructive to consider what {tuQ'eghmoH} and
{tatlh'eghmoH} would mean.

{puqvaD Sut tuQ'eghmoH vav}
{pa'Daq puq tatlh'eghmoH SoS}

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?
>
> {muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch} appears in the paq'batlh.

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.
>

{yItaD'eghmoH} is in KGT for "Freeze yourself" (literally, as in "cause
yourself to be frozen"), as opposed to {yItaD} which idiomatically means
"cease moving!"

However, {yItamchoH} (from TKD) is not {yItam'eghchoHmoH}, which is
probably for the better.

(Marc Okrand has also written {yIpIv} on a get-well card, though I don't
know if he was channeling Maltz when he did so. The KLI also has
{yIDoghQo'} as an example on its website rather than {yIDogh'eghmoHQo'},
but of course that's not a canon example.)

The sentence in KGT describing the {-'eghmoH} rule for imperatives with
verbs of quality says it applies "generally", though it seems there are
exceptions.

> 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.
>

Are there actually two possibilities? What's an example of an ambiguous
sentence?

-- 
De'vID

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20181229/f4c44410/attachment-0002.htm>