[tlhIngan Hol] chevchuqmoH

[Daniel Dadap]

> On Mar 5, 2019, at 08:56, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> If we say:
>> 
>> {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
>> 
> I don't think the sentence is meaningful. -chuq means the subject is plural and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work for the object.
> 

But the {-moH} is important here. If the object of a {-moH}ed verb can be the subject of the action being {moH}ed, I think it could be meaningful in the same way {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} is. {qeylIS} is the singular subject of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuqmey} are the plural object of {muvchuqmoH} which makes them into the plural subject of {muvchuq}.

> tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je chev qeylIS
> Kahless separates the Klingons and the Romulans.
> 

That’s obviously a more sensible way to say the first meaning, but I still think the question is a valid one.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190305/ab05ace9/attachment.htm>