tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 17 12:28:01 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ja'chuq explained (was: chetvI' yIHuvmoH)
According to Alan Anderson:
>
...
> 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'
I'll add to this that so far as I know, Okrand has confirmed
(at one of the qep'a'mey, I believe) only ONE case of what
appears to possibly be a verb plus suffix actually being a
separate verb root: lo'laH.
He had to do it. Otherwise, he could never use {lo'laH}
adjectivally, since {-laH} is not a suffix you can put on a
verb when it is used adjectivally, as in the term "valuable
information".
De' lo'laH vInobta', qar'a'?
In all other cases, unless Okrand reveals something else to us
he has not yet revealed, the words which appear to be verbs
plus suffixes really are verbs plus suffixes. You can't bend
the rules for suffix order if you want to add a lower numbered
type of verb suffix. You can't otherwise treat these words as
anything different than just verbs with suffixes.
Of course, that also means that if are using the "be valuable"
meaning of {lo'laH}, the suffix order IS not to be applied to
the {-laH} because it is part of the root verb. Hence, speaking
to someone who just fixed my previously useless and thus
worthless phaser pistol:
pu'HIchwIj Dalo'laHmoHta'.
Or even more delightfully:
pu'HIchwIj lo'laHmoHlu'ta'.
[jImon. bIvlaw' 'ach pabchu'.]
And similarly, if you are using the "can use" meaning of
{lo'laH}, the suffix order is "normal".
DaH pu'HIchwIj vIlo'qa'laH.
As it happens, there are two distinctly different words which
have the same spelling: lo'laH and lo'laH. One is a two
syllable root verb. One is a one syllable root verb with a one
syllable suffix. They look alike, but they behave differently
and have different meanings. Perhaps in the past, they were the
same, but this is not the past and we care mostly about the
current state of the language.
charghwI'