tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 24 23:32:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 02:32:06 -0400
From: WestphalWz <[email protected]>
>charghwI' seems to have missed some past discussion about {tlhob}. It
never
>meant "ask a question". It means "request, ask, plead". From canon
phrases
>we have discovered that it really means "request [that], ask [for someone
to
>do], ask [that], plead [that]".
No, the "that" is the {'e'} in the sentence {juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS
'e' vItlhob) "I request that you lead us and that you assume the duties of
commander of this ship" from KGT p. 184. {'e'} means "that," and it is NOT
built into the verb {tlhob}.
Furthermore, {tlhob} HAS been used in Power Klingon as {lutlhob} "They ask
him." Because the prefix does not indicate 1st- or 2nd-person, this CANNOT
indicate an indirect object as per Okrand's "shortcut" rule. Rather, the
object of {tlhob} in this use is quite definitely the person being asked.
{tlhob} has multiple choices as to what its object may be. However, the
"that" is absolutely NOT built into the verb.
>And, I add that "ask [for]" is covered by
>{poQ}, glossed as "demand, require." {poQ} seems to work for "order
[food],"
>too.
No it doesn't. I seem to remember a conversation about something like this,
but the point was entirely context-driven. You might require something, but
whether you ask for it or not is another matter. {tlhob} is not "ask for."
If you want to ask for food, you might tell someone you require food, but
that doesn't mean that "require" means "ask for." You might also say, {Soj
qem Qel 'e' tlhob SID} "The patient asked that the doctor bring food."
>Finally, charghwI' has brought up {tlhob}. This was not part of peHruS'
>argument.
But he was making a valid counter-argument. Don't you see? If you analyze
a single word in isolation you don't have sufficient information. We
analyze OTHER words, and realize that if additional meaning was meant for a
particular word, it would have been given in the definition.
>Then I started wondering aloud on this listserv about {qIm}, since it
really
>would work better if TKD is "incomplete" and the gloss should have been
"pay
>attention to".
I disagree. I think {qIm} works just fine as "pay attention," and I don't
need you to single-handedly try to make stuff up and pass it along.
>In my sign-off, someone will notice a deliberate use of a verb pronomial
>prefix.
>
>Qapla' batlh wIghojtaH peHruS
"We are learning it honorably," or "We are learning honor." What's your
point?
SuStel
Stardate 98314.2