Just to be clear, I agree with you. Erase all meaning from the words and dissect the grammar, and there is no direct object. charghwI’ ‘utlh
On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:52 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/31/2019 2:39 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
When I originally read it, I came up with something closer to “we drive each other to anger” based on both -moH and -choH.
Re: object with -moH
In this case, isn’t “each other” the object? I think any -moH verb is going to have an object (explicit or not).
That is not the case. Consider maghoSchoHmoHneS'a' may we execute a course (to some place)? in TKD. It explicitly has no object.
The issue here is the difference between the syntactic role of words and the semantic role of entities. Clearly, something has its course changed. But that something has no syntactic role in the sentence and does not appear.
So while it's true that wherever you see a -moH, something must actually be doing, or potentially be doing, the verb, there is absolutely no requirement that that something be given any kind of syntactic presence in the sentence. As far as the syntax of the sentence is concerned, there is no object. You can have -moH and have no object.
So when you say maQeHchuqchoHmoH, there is no grammatical object to the sentence, just as there is no object to the sentence maleghchuq. You can figure out who is doing the verb and who is having the verb done to them, but that's not in the syntax. Each other gets angry. We cause this to be.
«maHoHchuq» is functionally the same as something like «qaHoH ej qaHoHtaHvIS choHoH je». It’s just more efficient.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org