tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 06 12:51:46 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: RE: Compensating
Voragh:
> I think your TKD quote is an example of a prefix-less general "purpose noun":
Agreed. In fact, looking in TKD (p. 64-65), MO confirms that ja'chuqmeH is part of the object, not a purpose clause that modifies the whole sentence.
Based on this, I figure one should be able to say toH quv'eghmoHmeH betleH DaSuqta''a'. ("So, you've gotten yourself a self-aggrandizement bat'leth?")
//loghaD
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Steven Boozer [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 21:26
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: RE: Compensating
Examples of {maja'chuq} from Power Klingon:
maja'chuqjaj?
Can we talk? (PK)
'uQ wISoppu'DI' maja'chuq.
We will talk after dinner. (PK)
I think your TKD quote is an example of a prefix-less general "purpose noun":
ja'chuqmeH rojHom
truce for (two sides) to discuss/confer with each other.
Perhaps these sorts of truces are so common in Klingon warfare that they have a special name.
If it were a specific, one-time occasion, you would need to conjugate the verb:
nuja'meH rojHom neH jaghla'
The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to speak to us (tell us)
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
> -----Original Message-----
> From: > Of Felix Malmenbeck
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:42 PM
>
> Andre:
> > Don't you need to add a 2nd person prefix to your last example? I know -meH
> > phrases can live without, but considering the -'egh there, I'd add it. After
> > all, the batleth isn't aggrandizing itself.
>
> A solid point. To me, it feels like it shouldn't be necessary, since the subject of a
> purpose noun is usuallly third-person even if the one using it isn't (although there
> are exceptions, such as jIpaSqu'mo' narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb [...]
>
> I think the best example is this sentence from TKD:
> ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla' -
> The enemy commander wishes a truce to confer.
> Here, it strikes me as though the people who should confer (ja'chuq) are in fact
> *all of us* (maH), so if the prefixes have to match, it should be maja'chuqmeH
> rojHom neH jaghla'.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: André Müller [[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 19:21
>
> Don't you need to add a 2nd person prefix to your last example? I know -meH
> phrases can live without, but considering the -'egh there, I'd add it. After
> all, the batleth isn't aggrandizing itself.
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2011 1:04 AM, "Felix Malmenbeck" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> One thing I like about the latter alternative is that one can interpret
>> the -meH here as modifying either the sentence or the object, so either he
>> demands a large ship because he wanted to be honored, or he demands a
>> self-aggrandization ship which is large. A subtle difference, but one which
>> may be fun to play with.
>> Actually, I think I'm gonna start using quv'eghmoHmeH X as a derogatory
>> term.
>> toH quv'eghmoHmeH betleH DaSuqta''a'?
>> [So, you gotten a self-aggrandizing bat'leth?]
>>
>> ________________________________________