tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 27 14:27:45 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu'qaD - KLBC
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: mu'qaD - KLBC
- Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 17:27:14 -0400
ja' yIHmey SurghwI'
> "You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny"
> bImoHqu' 'ej SutDaq tlhaQ DutuQmoH SoSlI.
ja' yoDtargh
> You can drop the {-Daq} in {SutDaq}.
jang yIHmey SurghwI'
> Shouldn't there be some sort of indicator of "with" or "in"? I can
> understand not using {-Daq}, but it didn't sound quite right to me
> when I left it off.
jang yoDtargh
> {tuQmoH} is listed in TKD as "to put on (clothes)" but it literally > means
"to cause to wear". {Sut tlhaQ DutuQmoH SoSlI'} means > "Your mother puts on
you funny clothing" or "Your mother causes > you to wear funny clothing".
mayepnIS. lughbej yoDtargh 'e' vIHar.
'ach nuv latlh tuQmoH nuv 'e' Hech *Okrand 'e' vIHarbe'.
Using prefixes can be easy and misleading. Where is the true
object of the verb? Is this case like <pong>? Saying that
<Sut qatuQmoH> is "I dress you in clothes" is fine, but
what about "I dress my son in clothes"? I think (based on my
reading of <tuQ> as a stative verb) that <tuQmoH> was intended
as a reflexive action -- ie, how did I get to the state of <tuQ>.
<HIpwIj vItuQmoH> is "I put on my uniform"
<puqloDDaq HIpwIj vItuQmoH> is "I put my uniform on my son"
Brad