imperatives with {-'eghmoH} and verbs of activities
Interesting.. According to kgt: ---------- {yItaD!} or {petaD!} ("Be frozen!") These are idiomatic ways to give the command "Don't move!" The word {yItaD} is used when speaking to an individual; {petaD} is used when giving the command to a group. The verb {taD} means "be frozen," and it is used here in a peculiar, though not really ungrammatical, way. Generally, when a verb describing a state of being (for example, {tuj} ["be hot"]) is used in the imperative form, the suffixes {-'egh} (reflexive suffix) and {-moH} ("cause") are used as well: {yItuj'eghmoH!} ("Heat yourself!"---that is, "Cause yourself to be hot!"), {yItaD'eghmoH!} ("Freeze yourself!"---that is, "Cause yourself to be frozen!"). When {taD} is used in the idiomatic sense of "not move," however, it is treated as if a verb describing an activity, such as {yIt} ("walk"): {yIyIt!} ("Walk!"). ---------- Before (re)reading this, I was under the misconception, that when forming imperatives, the {-'eghmoH} is required on every verb which happens to be intransitive. But now, after (re)reading the relevant kgt Ca'Non, I understand that the {-'eghmoH} is required *only* on verbs of "state of being". So we say {yItuj'eghmoH}, {yIQuch'eghmoH}, {yIyoH'eghmoH}, but we say {yItIw}, {yIQong}, {yIHu'}, etc. ~ Dana'an remain klingon
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 at 15:18, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Before (re)reading this, I was under the misconception, that when forming imperatives, the {-'eghmoH} is required on every verb which happens to be intransitive.
There are plenty of canon examples which should've alerted you that it's otherwise, e.g., {yIqIm}, {yIbuS}, {pa' yIQam}, etc.
But now, after (re)reading the relevant kgt Ca'Non, I understand that the {-'eghmoH} is required *only* on verbs of "state of being".
So we say {yItuj'eghmoH}, {yIQuch'eghmoH}, {yIyoH'eghmoH}, but we say {yItIw}, {yIQong}, {yIHu'}, etc.
{yIHu'} is even spoken on screen in Star Trek III and Star Trek VI. -- De'vID
De'vID:
There are plenty of canon examples which should've alerted you that it's otherwise, e.g., {yIqIm}, {yIbuS}, {pa' yIQam}, etc
Yes, you're right. I can't understand how this misconception came to my mind. Perhaps in the past I read about the be-verbs needing to bear the {-'eghmoH} in imperatives, however, me then understanding "ok, any intransitive verb takes the {-'eghmoH} in its' imperative form". Anyway, this proves that we need to reread the relevant Ca'Non from time to time, in order to avoid any misconceptions becoming permanent. ~ Dana'an I love you maltz
participants (2)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS