tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 16 21:17:41 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
ja'chuq explained (was: chetvI' yIHuvmoH)
ja' pagh:
>The mistake is indeed mine, although I refuse to feel guilty about it.
>The word does not appear in either side of the TKD glossary or anywhere
>in the addendum, or on the new word list for that matter. It appears in
>my dictionary now, though. Bonus points to tuv'el for discovering a "new
>word" that's at least thirteen years old.
*sigh* I've really got to get my "nit-picker's guide to TKD" in a form
I can distribute. I spent a large number of hours swinging in a hammock
a little over a month ago going over the first half of TKD literally word
by word, and the repeated appearance of {jaghla'} is one of the things I
noted. But tuv'el got "published" first, so he gets the glory. :-)
But I will take this opportunity to point out the *other* nifty piece of
information given in the explanation of the phrase on page 65. A note in
parentheses says, regarding {ja'chuqmeH}:
The verb is made up of {ja'} "tell", {-chuq} "each other"; thus,
"confer" is "tell each other".
So {ja'chuq} *is* a simple verb with a suffix, and not a fancier verb
that just looks that way. The "discuss" meaning shouldn't be used as
evidence that it can take an object the way {qel} can.
-- ghunchu'wI'