SuStel:

> These two sentences mean the same

> thing, but you would generally see it

> expressed as the latter.

Ok, I understand this, thanks. But there's something else I'm wondering too.

Suppose I take the sentence {puqvaD paq luyajmoH ghojmoHwI'} and rewrite it omitting the {puqvaD}:

paq luyajmoH ghojmoHwI'

Could this new sentence mean too "the teachers cause someone unspecified to understand the book"?

Or is that the only thing it can mean is "the teachers cause the book to understand" as if the book was alive or something?

Yes, it can mean "The teachers cause someone unspecified to understand the book."

Please understand that -moH is not the "shift subject into object" suffix. It is the "subject does not do the thing but causes the thing to be done" suffix. What happens with the object depends largely on what you want to say.

paq vIyajmoH. This doesn't mean I understand the book, it means I cause understanding of the book. It might also mean I cause the book to understand, but that's probably a nonsense interpretation.

As a general pattern in Klingon, when the subject causes the action to be performed instead of performing it, the "object" could be either the direct object (that which the action is performed upon) or the indirect object (that which receives the result of the action). Both are "objects" in Klingon. Use common sense to distinguish which one is meant. Potentially, mark the indirect object explicitly with -vaD, because that's something that Klingon does. When you have both a direct and indirect object, you must mark the indirect object with -vaD to distinguish it from the direct object. That's where we get ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name