In tkd {HeghmoH} is given as "be fatal". Does this mean that whenever someone uses it, he *has* to use it in order to say that "something is fatal" ? And thus only use it as a be verb ? Can't someone use it in order to say "something/someone caused something/someone to die" ? And so use it in a transitive way ? qunnoq
On 8/3/2017 10:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
In tkd {HeghmoH} is given as "be fatal".
Does this mean that whenever someone uses it, he *has* to use it in order to say that "something is fatal" ? And thus only use it as a be verb ?
Can't someone use it in order to say "something/someone caused something/someone to die" ? And so use it in a transitive way ?
I don't think *HeghmoH* is a "be" verb. I think *HeghmoH* is a sort of passive version of *HoH. HoH* says /this thing does this./ *HeghmoH* is more like /he's dead because of this thing./ This is just my gut feeling on the matter, not a rule. You could say *HeghmoH tar*/poison is fatal,/ but you couldn't say **tar HeghmoH* /fatal poison./ If a first officer assassinates a captain for weakness, you'd say *HoD HoH yaS wa'DIch*/the first officer kills the captain,/ not *HoD HeghmoH yaS wa'DIch*/the first officer is fatal to the captain,/ even though the sentence is perfectly grammatical. Again, this is just my opinion. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:57 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
If a first officer assassinates a captain for weakness, you'd say *HoD HoH yaS wa'DIch** the first officer kills the captain,* not *HoD HeghmoH yaS wa'DIch** the first officer is fatal to the captain,* even though the sentence is perfectly grammatical. Again, this is just my opinion.
If I heard someone say *HoD HeghmoH yaS wa'DIch*, I'd assume the first officer didn't intend to kill the captain. * HIchDal SeHlawDaq ba'pu' yaS QIp, 'ej HoD HeghmoHpu'.* *The stupid officer sat on the airlock control panel and caused the captain to die.* Or maybe that he didn't kill the captain directly. * QuSpu' cheng Sa', 'ej Qang HeghmoH.* *General Chang conspired and caused the chancellor to die.* bI'reng
I understand the replies given so far, however I can't understand the reason which prohibits the full use of {HeghmoH} as a be-verb, i.e. its use in the way of {tera' yav 'atlhqam HeghmoH} for "fatal mushroom". Is this happening because of the presence of {-moH} ? qunnoq On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:57 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
If a first officer assassinates a captain for weakness, you'd say HoD HoH yaS wa'DIch the first officer kills the captain, not HoD HeghmoH yaS wa'DIch the first officer is fatal to the captain, even though the sentence is perfectly grammatical. Again, this is just my opinion.
If I heard someone say HoD HeghmoH yaS wa'DIch, I'd assume the first officer didn't intend to kill the captain.
HIchDal SeHlawDaq ba'pu' yaS QIp, 'ej HoD HeghmoHpu'. The stupid officer sat on the airlock control panel and caused the captain to die.
Or maybe that he didn't kill the captain directly.
QuSpu' cheng Sa', 'ej Qang HeghmoH. General Chang conspired and caused the chancellor to die.
bI'reng
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 04.08.2017 um 08:41 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I understand the replies given so far, however I can't understand the reason which prohibits the full use of {HeghmoH} as a be-verb, i.e. its use in the way of {tera' yav 'atlhqam HeghmoH} for "fatal mushroom". Is this happening because of the presence of {-moH} ?
Yes. It's basically because it's not a real "be-verb", it's only the translation that misleadingly includes the verb "be". I don't remember the source, but it was once confirmed that all verbs that include a suffix in their definition are basically just a verb plus a suffix and should be treated as such. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
{HeghmoH} is already transitive – that’s what {-moH} does. “Be fatal” is an English idiom meaning “cause someone to die”. For example, chaq Saqghom HeghmoH javtIm. The virus may be fatal to the landing party. which is colloquial for the clumsier “Perhaps the virus will cause the landing party to die.” --Voragh ____________________________________________________________________ On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:32 AM In tkd {HeghmoH} is given as "be fatal". Does this mean that whenever someone uses it, he *has* to use it in order to say that "something is fatal" ? And thus only use it as a be verb ? Can't someone use it in order to say "something/someone caused something/someone to die" ? And so use it in a transitive way ? qunnoq
Am 03.08.2017 um 16:32 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
In tkd {HeghmoH} is given as "be fatal".
Can't someone use it in order to say "something/someone caused something/someone to die" ? And so use it in a transitive way ?
Yes, of course it can. I see no reason why not: {vav HeghmoH SoS} "the mother made the father die." {HeghmoH SoS} "The mother is fatal" The question which I see is whether this can be used like a verb? Can I say {SoS HeghmoH} for "fatal mother"?? I doubt it, and think i can only be used literally, not as a verb. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
participants (5)
-
Brent Kesler -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel