On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 20:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 4/10/2019 2:03 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
*meQ* used transitively is synonymous with *meQmoH*, right? So you can say *meQmoH* if you like, or you can dispense with *-moH*. But yes, there's no telling whether the transitive or intransitive sense came first.
The fact that you can (apparently) say *meQ* or *meQmoH* to mean the same thing doesn't mean that one necessarily arises from a dropping or adding of *-moH* for brevity or pragmatics. That's one possible reason, but there are others.
Maybe {meQ} originally only meant the subject was on fire (and took no object), but its usage was influenced by {mIQ} (which sounds like {meQ} in some dialects). Or maybe {meQ} always means "discharge fire, apply fire to", and we've been misunderstanding it {meQtaHbogh qach} "a burning house" (the house applies fire to its occupants and contents) {to'waQ meQ vutwI'} "the cook applies fire to the tendon" {jIbDaj lumeQmoH qulHom} "sparks caused his hair to discharge fire" In that case, {meQ} and {meQmoH} don't mean the same thing. {meQmoHtaHbogh qach} "a pyromanic house" (the house makes its occupants and contents set fire to other things) {to'waQ meQmoH vutwI'} "the cook causes the tendon to burn other things" {jIbDaj lumeQ qulHom} "sparks burn his hair" (I don't really believe the above, but one can always interpret things which are underspecified to fit a predetermined conclusion.) -- De'vID