[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: chIm

[qov at kli.org]

> So, lets approach this by doing this.. I'll write some thoughts on qIj ;
please
> read them and tell me your comments.
> 
> bIQ qIj = black water
> qIj bIQ = the water is black
> qIjchoH bIQ = the water becomes black
> qIjchoHmoH bIQ = the water causes (something) to be black (although i just
> saw that since qIj describes a state or quality it cannot take an
> object)
>
> bIQ qIjchoHmoHlu' = someone causes the water to become black ; but wait a
> second ! I just realized that if qIj cannot take an object, then how come
in
> this example bIQ IS the object ?

qIj by itself can't take an object, but once you add -moH it's a new verb
that means "make black" and makes more sense with an object.

> ..and now that I saw again my original sentence {qIjchoHmoH jul}, I
realized
> that when one uses -moH, he must state who is "doing the causing" ; Indeed
> I wrote that the sun is doing the causing. But if I had a subject doing
the
> causing, then the sun would be placed at the object position and verbs
which
> describe state or qualities cannot take one.
> 
> Perhaps one could say that "one can't use -moH on intransitive verbs",
which
> I'm sure that it is wrong..
> 
> There is something I just can't figure out here.

You just overthought it.  Sure, qIj can't take an object. It just makes no
sense.  Turn it into qIjmoH and it makes sense, so it can have an object.
You'll find an example right in TKD: nuqDaq wajwIj vIlamHa'choHmoH? It's a
god idea to work through the phrasebook section of TKD to see how the
language works put together. That same sentence shows that it's not
necessary to say {waqmeywIj}. There's no need to be explicitly plural.
People will assume there are multiple shoes involved, and the answer won't
change if they don't.

-Qov