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