tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 15 02:51:08 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Multiple -chugh suffixes (was Re: qaghqoq vIbotchoH)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Multiple -chugh suffixes (was Re: qaghqoq vIbotchoH)
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:51:29 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:39:47 -0700 (PDT) [email protected]
wrote:
> nuja' charghwI':
>
> << *KLBC* ghajchugh 'ej paghvo' lablu' roD vIlaD, 'ach latlhvo'
> lablu' 'ej *KLBC* ghaj vIQaw'.
> >>
>
> vIqunbe', vIghel neH:
> I'm not criticizing him, just asking a question:
>
> mu'tlheghvamDaq Hoch 'ay'Daq mojaQ -chugh lughajnISbe''a'
> wot wa'DIch wot cha'DIch je?
> In each clause of this sentence, shouldn't both the first and the second verb
> have the suffix -chugh?
bIlughchu'. jIQaghpu'. HIvqa' veqlargh!
> chovnatlh:
> Example:
>
> *KLBC* ghajchugh 'ej labchugh pagh vaj roD vIlaD,
> 'ach *KLBC* ghajchugh 'ej labchugh latlh vaj vIQaw'.
>
> meqwIj vIQIj: wot wa'DIch wot cha'DIch je wuvba' wot Qav.
> I'll explain my reasoning: The last verb obviously depends on both
> the first and the second verb.
>
> *England* Hol vIlo'taHvIS, ngoDvam vI'ang vIneHDI', Hoch 'ay'Daq yap wa' mu':
> *if*.
> Using English, when I want to show this fact, one word *if* in each clause is
> enough.
>
> *if* tlha'bogh mu'tlheghHom naQDaq Hoch wot wuv wot *main*.
> The main verb depends on every verb in the entire clause that follows *if*.
>
> 'ach tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHvIS, mojaQ -chugh ghajbogh wa' wot'e' wuv wot *main*
> 'e' 'ang mojaQvetlh.
> But in Klingon, the suffix -chugh shows that the main verb depends on the one
> verb which has that suffix.
>
> latlh wotmey qelbogh De' nunobbe'.
> It doesn't give us any information about other verbs.
>
> vaj mojaQ -chugh ghajnIS Hoch wot'e' wuvbogh wot *main*.
> So every verb that the main verb depends on has to have the suffix -chugh.
>
> (As an unrelated aside, how's that last relative construction? I realize that
> it
> couldn't work at all except that *wuv* is a transitive verb and *Hoch wot* is
> its
> direct object. There isn't any "in which"-type oblique object involved, in
> spite
> of the English "on".)
>
> --jey'el
QaQ mInDu'lIj
charghwI' 'utlh