tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 08 19:19:39 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
tuQ vs tuQmoH (was Re: Klingon WOTD: chaQ (verb))
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: tuQ vs tuQmoH (was Re: Klingon WOTD: chaQ (verb))
- Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:18:34 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Voragh:
> qoghDaj tuQHa'moH.
> He took his belt off.
vaj chay' pIm {tuQ} {tuQmoH} je? TKDDaq tu'lu'mo' {qogh tuQ} vIlaj, vaj nuq
'oS {tuQHa'}?
Then how are {tuQ} and {tuQmoH} different? From TKD's definition I'd accept
{qogh tuQ} "he wears the belt", so what does {tuQHa'} mean?
Ah, I think I see now. I suspect Okrand may have misunderstood the
definition in TKD. The definition of {tuQmoH} is "put on (clothes)". In view
of the existence of {tuQ} "wear", I would have thought that this gloss "put
on" would have signified "put (clothes) on (someone else)", or even "dress
(someone else)". I would have used {tuQ'eghmoH} or even just {tuQ}. But the
usage demonstrated seems to be "put (clothes) on (oneself)".
Similarly, the English gloss "undress" could be either intransitive or
transitive, but {tuQHa'moH}, I would have thought, would be transitive
"undress (someone else)", definitely not "get undressed".
Either that, or {qoghDaj tuQHa'moH} actually refers to two people: "He (A)
took his (B's) belt off".
ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:
>The {poSmoH} example is not valid. {poS} is a state verb; it takes no
>object of its own. Thus adding {-moH} can add only one object: the thing
>opened.
Agreed. {-moH} increases the valency of the verb by one (even if it's
something unspecified) - no more, no less. For that reason, and also because
of the definitions, I don't think the examples of {tuQmoH} are explanatory
either: in that case, {-moH} doesn't increase the verb's valency. It's like
{roSHa'moH} in that the connection between the verb without {-moH} and the
verb with {-moH} seems not to be totally transparent (unless {tuQ} is
beginning to be used in a meaning like "to be worn, to be put on", like
??{tuQ qoghDaj} "his belt is being worn").
It's all rather confusing, really. {{:) But my question still stands: What
do you all think is the meaning of {tuQHa'}?
Savan,
QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' qan je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Are you right for each other? Find out with our Love Calculator:
http://fun.mobiledownloads.com.au/191191/index.wl?page=191191text