Does anyone know of any canon examples of {-moH} being used with a no object prefix? Or having an English translation that appears to be using an indefinite object (indefinite subject of the main verb)? Or presenting the main verb in the infinitive in the English translation? Jeremy
On 1/11/2019 8:19 AM, David Holt wrote:
Does anyone know of any canon examples of {-moH} being used with a no object prefix? Or having an English translation that appears to be using an indefinite object (indefinite subject of the main verb)? Or presenting the main verb in the infinitive in the English translation?
The object of a verb with *-moH* is not always the "subject of the main verb." Sometimes the object of a verb with *-moH* would also be the object of the verb if it didn't have *-moH.* To answer your request, yes: *maghoSchoHmoHneS'a' */may we execute a course (to some place)?/ (TKD) The agent of the sentence, the entity performing the verb *ghoS,* is unspecified. The subject is the causer, the entity that causes the agent to perform the verb. I recommend that any sentences with *-moH* be analyzed in terms of semantic roles. The subject is always the cause; the patient, if there is one, is the direct object; the agent/experiencer may be the direct object, or it might be the indirect object if there is a patient. I'm not sure what value an English translation in the infinitive would be. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
tkd:
maghoSchoHmoHneS'a' may we execute a course (to some place)? (TKD)
I don't understand this sentence; why does it need the {-moH} in the first place ? How is it any different from saying simply {maghoSchoHneS'a'} ? The way I would interpret the {maghoSchoHmoHneS'a'} is "we cause to begin to follow a course, (sir/captain, whatever..) ?" Why not just say {maghoSchoHneS'a'} for "we cause to follow a course , (sir/captain, whatever..) ?" ? ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 15:18, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
tkd:
maghoSchoHmoHneS'a' may we execute a course (to some place)? (TKD)
I don't understand this sentence; why does it need the {-moH} in the first place ? How is it any different from saying simply {maghoSchoHneS'a'} ?
The difference is that this sentence is just asking if they're beginning to go somewhere. With the {-moH}, they're *making* something (for example a ship) begin to go somewhere. The speakers (they're on a ship) are not asking if *they* can go somewhere (like the bathroom), they're asking if they can *cause* (the ship) to go somewhere.
The way I would interpret the {maghoSchoHmoHneS'a'} is "we cause to begin to follow a course, (sir/captain, whatever..) ?"
{ma-} means that "we" do something, and there is no object, but also when an object is not specified.
Why not just say {maghoSchoHneS'a'} for "we cause to follow a course , (sir/captain, whatever..) ?" ?
Did you mean to write {-moH} (not {-choH}) in the Klingon, or "begin" (not "cause") in the English? Those sentences don't match. But in any case, the answer is because the speaker is not asking permission to go somewhere themselves, but to alter the course (of a ship which is being alluded to). -- De'vID
Other examples: SeymoH QeH Anger excites. TKW HeghqangmoHlu'pu' It made him willing to die. TKD --Voragh From: SuStel Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 8:01 AM On 1/11/2019 8:19 AM, David Holt wrote: Does anyone know of any canon examples of {-moH} being used with a no object prefix? Or having an English translation that appears to be using an indefinite object (indefinite subject of the main verb)? Or presenting the main verb in the infinitive in the English translation? The object of a verb with -moH is not always the "subject of the main verb." Sometimes the object of a verb with -moH would also be the object of the verb if it didn't have -moH. To answer your request, yes: maghoSchoHmoHneS'a' may we execute a course (to some place)? (TKD) The agent of the sentence, the entity performing the verb ghoS, is unspecified. The subject is the causer, the entity that causes the agent to perform the verb. I recommend that any sentences with -moH be analyzed in terms of semantic roles. The subject is always the cause; the patient, if there is one, is the direct object; the agent/experiencer may be the direct object, or it might be the indirect object if there is a patient. I'm not sure what value an English translation in the infinitive would be. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 1/11/2019 9:30 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
Other examples:
*SeymoH QeH* Anger excites. TKW
*HeghqangmoHlu'pu'*
It made him willing to die. TKD
*SeymoH QeH* is a good example of an undefined object, but the English translation of *HeghqangmoHlu'pu'* makes it clear that the object of the verb is an elided *ghaH,* so I deliberately didn't mention this one. While the lack of a prefix might indicate no object, it might also indicate certain third-person objects. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 11.01.2019 um 15:30 schrieb Steven Boozer:
Other examples:
*SeymoH QeH* Anger excites. TKW
*HeghqangmoHlu'pu'*
It made him willing to die. TKD
This one also quickly came to my mind, but in both cases, the zero prefix includes an object: "excite" is transitive (at least in english) so anger does indeed scite something or somebody. The second phrase even shows the object in the translation: it made HIM willing to die. I think the question was for canon examples of a phrase like {jIghojmoH} "I cause to learn" (Which I think is okay to say, but is there canon for this?) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type4VerbSuffixes
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 15:53, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 11.01.2019 um 15:30 schrieb Steven Boozer:
Other examples:
*SeymoH QeH* Anger excites. TKW
This one also quickly came to my mind, but in both cases, the zero prefix includes an object: "excite" is transitive (at least in english) so anger does indeed scite something or somebody.
It may be transitive, but that doesn't mean it can't be used without an object. The verb "eat" is transitive, but you can certainly say "he eats" without saying what he eats. I think there's no object here: anger excites generally, not anyone in particular. -- De'vID
On 1/11/2019 10:02 AM, De'vID wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 15:53, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de <mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote:
Am 11.01.2019 um 15:30 schrieb Steven Boozer: > Other examples: > > *SeymoH QeH* > Anger excites. TKW
This one also quickly came to my mind, but in both cases, the zero prefix includes an object: "excite" is transitive (at least in english) so anger does indeed scite something or somebody.
It may be transitive, but that doesn't mean it can't be used without an object. The verb "eat" is transitive, but you can certainly say "he eats" without saying what he eats. I think there's no object here: anger excites generally, not anyone in particular.
Right. And Klingon grammar marks general or indefinite objects explicitly with no-object prefixes on verbs, so given that we know by the translation that there is no elided object, this sentence satisfies Jeremy's request. It is a verb with *-moH* that has a no-object prefix (null, and we know it's a no-object null and not a third-person-object null). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
David Holt -
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel