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

[Felix Malmenbeck]

Supposedly, if tuQmoH really is its own stem (like lo'laH), which appears to be the case (consider the canonical difference between tuQHa'moH and tuQmoHHa'), moH and 'egh could be combined thusly:

jItuQ'eghmoH = I dress myself
jItuQmoH'egh = I put on myself (as though I were clothing)

________________________________________
From: David Trimboli [david at trimboli.name]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 14:55
To: tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Semantic roles with -moH... again

On 2/9/2012 8:32 AM, Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh wrote:
>

> The {-moH} adds an object to otherwise objectless verbs, so I
> don't see why it shouldn't be fine to use {vI-} with {-'eghmoH}.

Using -'egh or -chuq requires the no-object prefix, as per TKD 4.2.1.
Presumably this also means it requires that there be no object.

--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol