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"
  • 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
>no reason that {qanep} does not mean "I lie to you."  It is a shortened
>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
>the person being lied to.  "I lie for your benefit" sounds like I'm
>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.

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.

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.

Stardate 98016.4

Back to archive top level

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

The Klingon Language Institute is a nonprofit corporation and exists to facilitate the scholarly exploration of the Klingon language and culture. Klingon, Star Trek, and all related marks are Copyrights and Trademarks of Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved. Klingon Language Institute Authorized User.