tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 25 22:10:12 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Adverbial Concepts
On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Alan Anderson wrote:
> WARNING! This note concerns an area of the language with which I am
> not fully comfortable. Will an official Grammarian please
> read and comment on my use of {jatlhchuq}?
>
> peHruS:
> > "Passionately the ocuple exchanged love stories."
> > bang lutmey ja' loD be' je 'ej nongqu' chaH
>
> yoDtargh has pointed out that {bang} isn't the right concept here, and
> suggested a couple of ways to express the original without tacking two
> separate sentences together. But he missed a chance to point out your
> incomplete translation of "exchanged". You translate it as {ja'}, and
> he kept it that way in his sentences also. That simply means "tell",
> and might imply that the couple were telling a story to someone else.
> I'd add {-chuq} to say "tell each other." Since {ja'chuq} translates
> as "discuss", I'd use {jatlh} instead:
>
> nongqu'taHvIS loD be' je muSHa'ghach buSbogh lutmey'e' jatlhchuq
Sec. 4.2.1. indicates that when a verb uses the {-chuq} suffix, it can't
take an object. Unfortunately, we don't have any examples of what to do
if a verb with {-chuq} has an indirect object. When you use a verb with
{-chuq} there is always a plural subject. Each of the subjects is the
object of the other subject; and you use a verb prefix which would
indicate "no object". But what happens when there is an indirect object?
I would tend to think that if you say "They tell each other stories", then
"stories" would be the indirect object and you would have to use {-vaD}, e.g.
lutmeyvaD jatlhchuq loD be' je.
I deliberately didn't use {ja'chuq} because it brings up a thorny question
which I don't have the answer to. But since you brought it up, I'll go over
it.
There are two ways to view the word {ja'chuq}:
1. The word is simply a combination of {ja'} (tell, report) + {-chuq}
(one another) and {ja'chuq} simply means "to tell each other". Sec. 4.2.1.
says that when you use {-chuq}, you use a prefix which indicates the verb
has no object, i.e. the object is "one another". If such is the case,
then {ja'chuq} can't take an object.
2. Since {ja'chuq} appears in the TKD as a separate entry, it is a
separate verb unto itself and despite its appearance, it is not a verb
with the {-chuq} suffix attached. If such is the case, then there is no
reason that this verb couldn't take an object. Thus, you could say:
puqchaj luja'chuq ghunchu'wI' be'nalDaj je.
(If {ja'chuq} was {ja'} + {-chuq}, then it could never have {lu-} as a
prefix.)
If {ja'chuq} is a separate verb, then you could even say {ja'chuqchuq
chaH} (They discuss each other.)
Personally, I would like to think that {ja'chuq} is the latter, a
separate word, because without the restriction of not being able to use a
direct object with it, you have much more flexibility. But that's just
my own personal opinion and I can't prove that either view is right or
wrong.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
yoDtargh