tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 06 12:53:11 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: waqmey lutuQ verenganpu'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: waqmey lutuQ verenganpu'
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 06:35:28 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
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
see
>>no reason that {qanep} does not mean "I lie to you." It is a shortened
form
>>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
indicate
>the person being lied to. "I lie for your benefit" sounds like I'm
covering
>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.
jInob
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.
jInep
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.
SuStel
Stardate 98016.4