tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 23 06:55:05 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
wot tiqqu'qu'
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: wot tiqqu'qu'
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 09:54:57 -0500
>From: [email protected] (The Songbringer -- Marnen to the common fol
> k)
>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 19:05:43 EST
>Doch tlha' jatlhta' charghwi':
>:
>:
>: Beautiful word, and I REALLY hate to rain on anybody's parade, but
>: shouldn't that be:
>:
>: bIlobHa'Qo'chuqqa'moHlaHbe'qu'law'taHneS'a'?
>No, I don't think it should. The meaning I had in mind was something like "Your
>honor, are you apparently NOT able to cause them to again refuse to disobey
>each other?" This would give a 2nd person singular subject and a 3rd person
>plural object, clearly a candidate for >Da-<. I know Okrand says that verbs
>with >-chuq< take "no object" prefixes, but because of >-moH< I thought that
>that would not be appropriate in this case -- remember, it's "*cause* them to
>refuse to disobey each other". I don't know if I'm right on this, but that's
>the way it seemed to me.....any thoughts?
Hard to say; the word is just *far* too long to analyze easily and suck
into my brain to run through my instincts without some concerted effort.
Let's try this on something smaller. "Suv": they fight. "Suvchuq": they
fight each other. "DaSuvmoH": you cause [them] to fight. Can these be
reconciled into, say "?DaSuvchuqmoH"? Doesn't sound right to me. At least
at first glance it looks bad. I'd expect something like that to be broken
out a little more, perhaps with the "qaSmoH" method already mentioned and
used. The problem, again, is that you have "-moH" on an already transitive
verb, giving you two objects. This was hashed out a while back for a
while. If the pronoun "chaH" is explicit it somehow sounds less bad, but
it still doesn't really ring true.
~mark