> {bIjatlh 'e' yImev} only works because the person being ordered to stop is the person who is talking.
> In the case of a person pausing a device, the person is not the one who is ceasing.

I'm not certain that we could exclude something like {jalth chaH 'e' yImev} based on available information, but it's certainly possible. It would mesh well with this line from KGT:

-- The slang usage of -moH is probably influenced by the verb suffix -moH ("cause"), as in {mevmoH} ("cause [someone] to stop" - compare {mev}, "[someone] stops".

> I had thought {mev} might've been similar to {meQ}, which can mean both "burn, be burning" and "burn, cause something burn".

I actually started writing my previous e-mail thinking exactly that, based on {not mev peghmey} and {mamevQo' maSuvtaH ma'ov}. However, both of those also work well with "stop [doing something]", so that would be the simplest explanation.

From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 17:05
To: tlhIngan-Hol
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: mev

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 16:30, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:

> This was translated by Lieven. I believe the use of {mev} here is an error, and should've been {mevmoH}.

{mev} can take an object, so it works. {bIjatlh 'e' yImev} is in both TKD and PK.

{bIjatlh 'e' yImev} only works because the person being ordered to stop is the person who is talking. In the case of a person pausing a device, the person is not the one who is ceasing.

{mev} also appears six times in paq'batlh, and takes {'e'} as an object each time.

And in every instance, the subject of {mev} is the subject of the sentence which is its object. {mev} is appropriate, and {mevmoH} is not, in each of those six cases because the subject is not causing someone or something else to stop.

There is also the sentence {not mev peghmey} from PK. It could be that this {mev} could be given an explicit object, such as {not {vIH/vI'/chuS/leng/bogh/vuQ} 'e' lumev peghmev}, or it could be that {mev} has a homonymous intransitive form that is similar to {Dor}.

I had thought {mev} might've been similar to {meQ}, which can mean both "burn, be burning" and "burn, cause something burn". That is, {mev} could mean both "stop, be in cessation or at an end" and "stop, cause something to be in cessation or at an end". The latter meaning is how it's used in Hamlet and Netflix.

But after looking at the canon examples, canon seems to only support the former usage, even in the instances where {mev} takes an object. "Secrets never cease" means "secrets are never in a state of cessation or at an end". Even if we modified the sentence to be {vIH not 'e' mev peghmey} or {vIH peghmey not 'e' mev}, it would still only mean "secrets (themselves) never cease moving", not "secrets never stop something else from moving", "secrets never cease to move something else". I think that would be {mevmoH}.

I think the definition "stop, cease" supports this. While "stop" can mean both "be in cessation" or "cause to be in cessation", "cease" only means the former. You can stop talking, you can cease talking, and you can stop someone else's talking, but you can't cease someone else's talking. You have to cause ({-moH}) someone else to cease talking.

De'vID