[Tlhingan-hol] Semantic roles with -moH... again

[Robyn Stewart]

At 18:57 08/02/2012, you wrote:
>{HIp vItuQ} - I wear the uniform.
>{HIp vItuQ jIH} - *I* wear the uniform.  (Not someone else.)

Yup yup.

>{HIp vItuQmoH} - I dress (someone) in a uniform.

Yeah, with context.

>{HIp vItuQeghmoH} - I dress myself in a uniform.

If it's vItuQ'eghmoH, sure.

>{HIqraj qatuQmoH} - You dress me in your uniform.  (Prefix trick.)

That doesn't make any sense. "I dress you (singular) ...your plural 
uniform." Huh?

>{HIqwIj vItuQHa'moH} - I undress (from) my uniform.

Yeah, but you could be taking it off someone else.

>{puqloDwI'vaD DuSaQ HIqDaj vItuQHa'moH} - I undress my son from his 
>school uniform.

I'd go for teq here!

>{HIqvam mutuQmoH 'IpwI'} - My oath causes me to wear this 
>uniform.  <== Note the difference, here!

'IpwI' is someone who swears an oath. 'IpwIj is "my oath."

Would it be excessively bitchy for me to suggest you learn and use 
the basic affixes correctly before trying to unravel the difficult 
problems. Yes, it probably would be, but honestly, if you have twenty 
minutes today to spend on Klingon, spend it learning something we 
know, rather than speculating on something we don't.

And feel absolutely free to turn this on me, taunting, next time I 
screw up a prefix. It will probably be tomorrow. :-)

- Qov