tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 06 17:56:30 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: waqmey lutuQ verenganpu'
Regarding {qanep}:
ja' SuStel:
>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.
Verbs of saying don't need "the prefix trick" (except perhaps {jatlh}). The
object of {ja'} and {tlhob} already is the person spoken to. Otherwise, I've
only seen "the prefix trick" used when there's a "real" object in addition to
the recipient of the action.
>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.
Okay, I can see my literal interpretation is causing problems. I still am
not completely convinced that {SoHvaD jInep} *must* mean that you receive
the lie, but I agree that it's a valid interpretation, and probably the
most obvious one.
>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.
I've got no problem with any of these, except for a small nagging feeling
that {SoHvaD jInep} might have another valid interpretation. I'm sure it
will pass, though. :-)
>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."
This, however, bothers me a lot. I do *not* like the way an intransitive
verb with an object-indicating prefix sounds at all. It's a lot like your
{jIHvaD lI'} -> {mulI'} example (although {nep} doesn't act adjectivally).
>...If you previously had no
>trouble accepting {qanob}, you really have no good reason not to accept
>{qanep} now.
Maybe it's not a "good" reason, but the lack of a "real" object does make
the two situations distinct from one another.
-- ghunchu'wI'