tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 26 17:57:19 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
• Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:56:52 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

On Oct 20, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:

> --- Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I seem to be particularly contrarian today.
>>
>> ja' ter'eS:
>>> I do think you should use {-chuq}:
>> {maQumchuqlaHbe'}.
>>
>> I don't.  {Qum} is "communicate", not "communicate
>> with".
>
> Right. {maQumchuq} 'we communicate reciprocally/
> together"

No, not right.  The verb suffix {-chuq} doesn't mean "together" in  
concerted action; that would be the adverbial {nItebHa'} or something  
like the dependent clause {matay'taHvIS}.

{*maQumchuq} seems as ungrammatical to me as the direct English  
equivalent "We communicate each other".  It only works if {Qum} can  
normally have an object.  I have never seen a hint that it does, and  
its gloss of "communicate" suggests that it does not.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
    • From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for 2006/10/23
• Next by Date: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
• Previous by thread: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level