[tlhIngan Hol] To -choH, to -'eghmoH, or to nothing ?

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Mon Mar 4 10:03:43 PST 2019

On 3/4/2019 9:40 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> In imperatives, sometimes we see in Ca'NoN {-'eghmoH}, and sometimes
> we see {-choH}. For example: {yItam'eghmoH} or {yItamchoH}.
> I don't know, if there is a Ca'NoN example of using just the verb,
> e.g. {yItam}, but regardless whether there is indeed such a case or
> not, I wonder..
> Should anyone choose whatever he likes ? Is there something of the
> three (-'eghmoH, - choH, or none at all), one should necessarily use
> in an imperative ?

We see all forms. I don't think Okrand made up his mind about *-'egh + 
-moH* until KGT, so some earlier words violate it. I also think *'egh + 
-moH* may not apply to every imperative on every /be-/verb; it's used 
for things you have to actively do yourself, even if that's only a 
grammatical pretext. I don't think *-choH* necessarily negates the need 
for *-'egh* and *-moH.*


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190304/21ff9fa7/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list