[tlhIngan Hol] Clarification on SIch

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Wed Apr 10 14:43:03 PDT 2019


On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 20:26, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 4/10/2019 2:03 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>
> *meQ* used transitively is synonymous with *meQmoH*, right? So you can
> say *meQmoH* if you like, or you can dispense with *-moH*. But yes,
> there's no telling whether the transitive or intransitive sense came first.
>
> The fact that you can (apparently) say *meQ* or *meQmoH* to mean the same
> thing doesn't mean that one necessarily arises from a dropping or adding of
> *-moH* for brevity or pragmatics. That's one possible reason, but there
> are others.
>
Maybe {meQ} originally only meant the subject was on fire (and took no
object), but its usage was influenced by {mIQ} (which sounds like {meQ} in
some dialects).

Or maybe {meQ} always means "discharge fire, apply fire to", and we've been
misunderstanding it

{meQtaHbogh qach} "a burning house" (the house applies fire to its
occupants and contents)
{to'waQ meQ vutwI'} "the cook applies fire to the tendon"
{jIbDaj lumeQmoH qulHom} "sparks caused his hair to discharge fire"

In that case, {meQ} and {meQmoH} don't mean the same thing.

{meQmoHtaHbogh qach} "a pyromanic house" (the house makes its occupants and
contents set fire to other things)
{to'waQ meQmoH vutwI'} "the cook causes the tendon to burn other things"
{jIbDaj lumeQ qulHom} "sparks burn his hair"

(I don't really believe the above, but one can always interpret things
which are underspecified to fit a predetermined conclusion.)

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190410/1d63a83d/attachment.htm>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list