HIvqa' veqlargh ! I meant vIqIp'eghmoH for "I caused him to hit himself". On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:47 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
.. I came back.
In the spirit of what we just said, would you accept
{qaqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself" ?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:35 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, De'vID thank you !
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28 July 2016 at 08:45, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
That's exactly it: {-chuq} and {-moH} together.
Consider any verb which doesn't take an object, say {jor}.
{jor bIH} "they explode" {bIH vIjormoH} "I explode them", "I cause them to explode"
The same thing is happening here with {muvchuq}.
{muvchuq chaH} "they join each other" {chaH vImuvchuq} "I unite them", "I cause them to join each other"
It's a fairly straightforward interaction of two verb suffixes.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org