[tlhIngan Hol] Can I say maQeHchuqchoHmoH ?
sustel at trimboli.name
Thu Jan 31 11:52:55 PST 2019
On 1/31/2019 2:39 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
> 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).
That is not the case. Consider *maghoSchoHmoHneS'a'*/may we execute a
course (to some place)?/ in TKD. It explicitly has no object.
The issue here is the difference between the syntactic role of words and
the semantic role of entities. Clearly, /something/ has its course
changed. But that something has no syntactic role in the sentence and
does not appear.
So while it's true that wherever you see a *-moH,* /something/ must
actually be doing, or potentially be doing, the verb, there is
absolutely no requirement that that something be given any kind of
syntactic presence in the sentence. As far as the syntax of the sentence
is concerned, there is no object. You can have *-moH* and have no object.
So when you say *maQeHchuqchoHmoH,* there is no grammatical object to
the sentence, just as there is no object to the sentence *maleghchuq.*
You can figure out who is doing the verb and who is having the verb done
to them, but that's not in the syntax. Each other gets angry. We cause
this to be.
> «maHoHchuq» is functionally the same as something like «qaHoH ej
> qaHoHtaHvIS choHoH je». It’s just more efficient.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol