tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 14 21:46:59 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Object-verb relationship Questions



>From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
>To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
>
>    Try {maQoch}. I'm not sure what you're uncertain about concerning
>the object-subject relationship with some verbs; maybe send some more
>examples if you're still unsure about some things...
>
>!@#$%^&*(Guido1)*&^%$#@!

Well, I'd think maQoch is definitely out; I definitely want "I" as the
subject (singular first person, or whatever).

Admittedly the problem I have rarely comes up, but it comes up anyway.
I want to express "I disagree with you" in tlhIngan Hol.  Now my question
is whether to consider "with you" an object of "disagree" or not.  If
"with you" can be expressed implicitly, then I'd think qaQoch would be
good (I/you disagree), though that sounds wierd by translation.  My other
thought would be to say SoHmo' jIQoch, which is I disagree due to you,
or more exactly, due to you I disagree.  But then when I think about that,
I want to consider "SoHmo'" as an object, which means I should have put
"SoHmo' qaQoch", but by doing that I think it's redundant, and I'm back
to square one.  So I'm saying I think there are three possibilities:

1.  "qaQoch":  The verb (Qoch) takes "you" as an object; implicitly saying
               "disagree with".  Reasoning includes the fact that I don't
               see the use of ANY objects if the verb just means "to
               disagree".

2.  "SoHmo' jIQoch":  The verb (Qoch) takes no object for prefix determination
               and "SoHmo'" acts as a (insert correct grammar word here).

3.  "SoHmo' qaQoch":  The verb (Qoch) takes "you" as an object, but also
               requires the explicit definition of how "you" affects the
               subject.

Personally, my gut says that #2 is correct, but then my brain reasons that
either #1 or #3 is correct...

Other example words that might apply are panic (lIm) and pause (yev).  In
English, I don't think either pause, panic, or disagree really have any
sort of "object" associated with them.  You can't say "I panicked him" (okay,
maybe you can, but it's an implied "caused to panic"), and you can't
really say "I paused him" (okay, here you REALLY can, but again, it's more
like "caused to pause"), and you can't say "I disagreed him" (at all!).

With lIm and yev, if you give them an object, you would probably need to
imply some form of "cause to...", so it's not really a direct object, like
the verb qIp (to hit) would take:

vIqIp:  I hit him.  (I directly affected him, he is clearly the direct object)
vIlIm:  I panic him.  (It's not as direct; the meaning would be more like
        "I caused him to panic", which should theoretically require the -moH
        verb suffix, "vIlImmoH")

I guess the question is:  If it doesn't make sense directly translated, but
has a pretty obvious derivation, is it legal?  Obviously "qaQoch" is directly
translated as "I disagree you", but that makes no sense.  But I think it's
kinda obvious that "I disagree WITH you" not only makes sense, but kinda
fits...  So is it okay?

...Paul




Back to archive top level