tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 05 15:03:08 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: targh lut
- From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: targh lut
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 94 14:31:03 ECT
- In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 5 Dec 1994 10:32:37 -0500 from <[email protected]>
On Mon, 5 Dec 1994 10:32:37 -0500 William H. Martin said:
>As for {tuQ}, well, it is one of those strange words in TKD.
>What exactly does Okrand mean by putting the word "clothes" in
>parenthesis? tuQ = wear (clothes) (v). Does he mean that the
>word "clothes" is implied in the verb, so it is intransitive? Is
>he merely making sure we are not misinterpreting the verb to
>also mean "abrade" or wear in the sense that one wears a beard
>or perfume or long hair or a scowl? We are not sure. I don't
>remember any canon showing us how to use this verb.
It seems to me that when Okrand puts something in parenthesis, he is
trying to explain what type of situation the verb applies to. For tuQ,
I think (this is just ME thinking, mind you... I'm no canon source!) he
means
tuQ = wear (v) (as in wearing clothes, not as in wearing something
out from overuse)
In other words, he is just specifying which of the many meanings for "wear" to
attribute to tuQ. I don't think he means that "clothes" is implied in
the verb, otherwise he would have written
tuQ = wear clothes (v)
Of course, I agree that he probably didn't spend a lot of time on some
words, and thus didn't give us all the detail he should have.
>I suspect that {tuQ} was one small entry on a large list of
>other words that Okrand came up with all at once and {tuQ} did
>not perhaps get the attention it needed, similar to the verb
>{pong}. Both of these verbs have problems associated with their
>usage that are not as yet addressed by Okrand.
I haven't heard the arguments about pong, and I don't mean to start a
huge discussion all over again when I say that it seems very clear to me.
pong = name, call (v) says Okrand. At first glance it seems ugly, but
I see it as meaning something like
puqwIj boghDI' jIpong.
But I think my own argument has caused me to see the problem. How
would one say "When he is born, I name my child 'John'" ?
Dajqu' mu'meyvam...
D.A.T.
QUIT