[tlhIngan Hol] Can I say maQeHchuqchoHmoH ?

Jeffrey Clark jmclark85 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 31 11:39:18 PST 2019


When I originally read it, I came up with something closer to “we drive each other to anger” based on both -moH and -choH.


Re: object with -moH

In this case, isn’t “each other” the object? I think any -moH verb is going to have an object (explicit or not).

«maHoHchuq» is functionally the same as something like «qaHoH ej qaHoHtaHvIS choHoH je». It’s just more efficient.

—jevreH



Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 31, 2019, at 14:17, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> SuStel:
> > I don't see any reason why not. Do you see some reason 
> > why you can't?
> 
> I was confused by the co-existence of {-chuq} together with {-moH}; I was under the impression that by the use of {-moH} we absolutely had to have an object.
> 
> Anyway, I understand now, thanks. And yes, you were right. My intention was indeed to say "we get each other into an  angry state".
> 
> ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190131/102ae79b/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list