tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 27 07:18:18 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate

Steven Boozer ([email protected]) 

ghunchu'wI':
> >> ja' ter'eS:
> > 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.

AFAIK there are two known examples of {Qum}, neither taking an object:

   jIQum
   I communicate. STC:KLS

   naDev bIQumqa' 'e' vItul.
   [untranslated] BBS (MO to SuStel 11/96)



--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level