[Tlhingan-hol] Objects with -moH

[lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com]

The root problem is that the canon doesn't make clear what the distinction is, and Okrand has not made clear what the distinction is, and while each of us is free to make up a distinction that might make sense to us, that doesn't make that artificial distinction official and useful to the rest of us.

We are left with questions we can't answer until Okrand chooses to answer them. More than likely, he just forgot that it was an adjectival verb (be X). He forgot that he had used it that way. So, he used it in a way that conflicts with that use.

He might even argue that there are two DIFFERENT verbs that happen to be pronounced identically, and one of them is an adjective (X is burning), while the other is a verb with a direct object (X burns Y). The thing that he's probably NOT going to do is say that you can use this as an adjective and you can use it with a direct object. This is something he has never claimed for any verb.

He doesn't like to use the words "transitive" or "intransitive", but he does distinguish between verbs that can be used as adjectives (which never take objects) and verbs that take objects. This is how we wound up with the adjectival verb {lo'laH), which is the only two-syllable verb in the vocabulary, because he slipped and used it as an adjective.

{tIn} is an adjectival verb. It can't take a direct object. You can't make it take a direct object (except, arguably, with {-moH}).

{nob} is a verb that can take an object. You can't use it as an adjective. (Okay, okay, as an "adjectival". Sometimes the pickiness of terminology does more to confuse than to clarify, though some find it fun to claim a higher authority and demand that we use the one and only correct term. But is this really helping people understand Klingon?)

This is the distinction I'm talking about, and if Okrand has said {qach meQ}, he has used {meQ} as an adjective, and therefore, you CANNOT use it with a direct object. If he has done so, then either he screwed up, or there are two DIFFERENT verbs that are spelled {meQ} and one of them is adjectival, while the other can take a direct object, because it's one of Okrand's oldest and least flexible rules that you can't use a verb as an adjective and also use the same verb with a direct object (unless you add {-moH}).

On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:41 PM, Brad Wilson <bmacliam at aol.com> wrote:

>  My opinion on {meQ}. While canon may seem to contradict itself regarding {meQ} and {meQmoH}, I see it differently.
> Something can be on fire - perhaps it is made of combustible matter - this is clearly {meQ}
> "Causing something to burn", ie. to enter a state of {meQ}, is clearly {meQmoH}, perhaps by soaking it with fuel prior to lighting it. Then it continues to burn, whether the actor is still around or not. (It could be argued that {meQchoH} might apply here also.)
> However, there is canon to support {meQ} as transitive without {-moH}. I don't have a problem with this. If I am burning something which does not have the inherent property to burn on its own, I would use {meQ}. I need to continue my action in order for the object to continue to burn - if I stop, then it stops burning.
> Your thoughts?
> gheyIl
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140603/52f0e1d3/attachment.html>