[tlhIngan Hol] chevchuqmoH

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Tue Mar 5 07:14:58 PST 2019

On 3/5/2019 10:03 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 08:56, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto: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}.

Here we go again. In mayqel's proposed sentence, *tlhInganpu' *and 
*romuluSnganpu'* are not the subjects of anything. *qeylIS* is the only 
subject anywhere. *tlhInganpu'* and *romuluSnganpu'* might be considered 
as entities that perform *chevchuq,* but the verb isn't *chevchuq,* it's 
*chevchuqmoH.* The suffix *-chuq* doesn't mean whoever is performing an 
action performs it on each other; it means whoever is the subject does 
the verb on each other. In this sentence, the subject is not performing 
the action; he is causing the action to be performed.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190305/7f7159af/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list