Skip to content

Email Discussion Group

Re: KLBC: waqmey lutuQ verenganpu'

tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 06 12:53:11 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: waqmey lutuQ verenganpu'


  • From: "David Trimboli" sustel@email.msn.com
  • Subject: Re: KLBC: waqmey lutuQ verenganpu'
  • Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 06:35:28 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Anderson 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: KLBC: waqmey lutuQ verenganpu'


>ja' SuStel:
>If {qajatlh} is valid for "I speak to you" (which we know it is), then I
see
>no reason that {qanep} does not mean "I lie to you."  It is a shortened
form
>of {SoHvaD jInep}.
>
>I *do* see a reason for this not to work.  I'm not sure {nep} can or should
>be used as a verb of saying, and I don't think {-vaD} makes sense to
indicate
>the person being lied to.  "I lie for your benefit" sounds like I'm
covering
>for you, not deceiving you.

Okrand didn't say anything about the verb having to be a verb of saying to
do the prefix trick.  Indeed, examples such as {ro'qegh'Iwchab HInob} show
that it needn't be one.

Furthermore, {-vaD} doesn't mean that the noun receives something good or
beneficial from the action, it means that whatever the action was, the noun
with {-vaD} received it.  "Beneficiary" is a bad choice of words, because it
makes you think something good has happened.

jInob
I give (things in general).

SoHvaD jInob
I give (things in general) to you.  You are the person who receives the
result of the action.

jInep
I lie.

SoHvaD jInep
I lie to you.  You are the person who receives the result of the action.

Now, I'm not entirely certain if {qanob} is acceptable without an explicit
object as "I give it to you," but if we assume that {nep} does not normally
take an object, then {qanep} means exactly "I lie to you."

If {nep} DOES take an object, it would have to be something like
{vItHa'ghach}, which seems really silly to me.

***************

The reason I didn't like {qajatlh} was because if you allow it, you've got
to allow all sorts of other things too (unless you state that {qajatlh} is
an exception).  Well, now it's allowed, and it's not an exception, so we've
got to start liking the implications of it.  If you previously had no
trouble accepting {qanob}, you really have no good reason not to accept
{qanep} now.

The whole {qajatlh} thing is even messier, because it allows the possibility
that you can take something like {jIHvaD lI'} and turn it into {mulI'}.  I
DON'T think this is the case.  I believe that verbs of quality just can't do
this.  But according to what Okrand's told us, I can't see any reason you
aren't allowed to do it.

Ah, well.  I still don't say {qajatlh}, anyway.  Consider it a stylistic
choice pending further information.

SuStel
Stardate 98016.4






Back to archive top level


This page was last modified on February 13, 2015 and is is managed by: