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

[David Trimboli]

On 2/9/2012 2:59 PM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
>
> QeS 'utlh:
>>> 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}.
>
> SuStel:
>> 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.
>
> 'e' vIQubpu'.

You can't use a type 7 suffix there. :)

> 'ach chay' {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} DaQIj?

I dunno. Since paq'batlh was written by other and only vetted by Okrnad 
(I think), it will undoubtedly contain constructions that Okrand hadn't 
considered before. Rather than say "no, here's how -moH REALLY works" 
(which I doubt he knows or remembers), he said okay because it sounded 
more or less right. In other words, he may have started to believe the 
subject-becomes-the-object argument which, until recently, even I 
accepted. And it also looks very much like a "that's what it sounds like 
in English" argument.

(Likewise, there is a lack of aspect here that really should be required.)

To translate this, I'd say

Qo'noS tuqmeyvaD tay'moHpu' qeylIS.
Kahless caused (unspecified) to join, for the benefit of the Kronos tribes.

Presumably context would be sufficient to understand that the tribes 
would benefit because they joined each other, not because something else 
came together. But if there is an issue, recast:

qeylISmo' muvchuqpu' Qo'noS tuqmey.
The Kronos tribes joined each other because of Kahless.

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