[tlhIngan Hol] vech

[Lieven L. Litaer]

On 6/17/2021 4:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
>> So, to say "I cross my fingers", you say {nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH}, and
>> not {vIvechmoH}.

Am 17.06.2021 um 14:55 schrieb SuStel:
> Was there any discussion about using a third-person object prefix along
> with the -chuq suffix?

That is indeed a very good question, and no, we did not focus on this.

We did not really think about the prefixes, they followwed
automatically. In the discussion, the topic was first on the verb
{vIvech}, then {vIvechmoH} - and the we noticed that it need the {-chuq}
suffix to say each other. Since the subject and the object of the
sentence did not change ("I --> fingers") we also didn't think about the
question whether this suffix woudl work there - as opposed to what TKD.

Of course we all know that TKD is not complete.

For the record, it was me who suggested {vIvechchuqmoH} and Okrand said
that it's okay. It *might* be possible that he had forgotten about the
usage of this suffix... But on the other hand, if you regard [vechchuq]
as one unit, then {vI-[vechchuq]-moH} seems quite plausible.

In the meantime, I try to think of other such constructions. What about
"I cause him to hit himself" - {vIqIp'eghmoH}. Why not?

---

Going a bit further, I think the answer is hidden in the suffix {-moH}.
TKD gives this small example:

{HIQoymoH} "let me hear (something)"

The suffix indicates "me" as the object of the entire sentence (i.e. the
-moH), but the translation reveals that the object of the verb is
"something", not "me". So based on that, I would conclude that when you
have a verb with {-moH}, the used prefix aims at the person being
influenced without respect to what the object of the verb itself is.
That would explain the usage of {vI-} in {vIvechchuqmoH}.

(Very roughly said, think of -moH as a verb and translate literally: "I
moH THEM to [vechchuq]")

--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
http://www.tlhInganHol.com
http://klingon.wiki/En/Type4VerbSuffixes