tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 22 16:50:37 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Double Predicates and tuQ

• From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Double Predicates and tuQ
• Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 19:50:13 EDT

On Oct 22, 11:45am, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Subject: Double Predicates and tuQ
> 
> While I was researching possible evidence for the double-predicate
> problem, I came upon an interesting trio of verbs:
> 
> tuQ             wear (clothes) (v)
> tuQHa'moH       undress (v)
> tuQmoH          put on (clothes) (v)
...
> I'd have guessed that "to put on clothes"/"to dress oneself in..." would be
> "tuQchoH" (to start wearing), giving "HIpwIj vItuQchoH" for "I put on my
> uniform."  But we have "tuQmoH" instead, which would have made sense if
> "tuQ" meant "to be worn", but it doesn't.  

     tuQ = wear (clothes)
     tuQHa'moH = undress (someone)
     tuQHa''eghmoH = undress (yourself)
     tuQmoH = put (clothes) on (someone else) 
     tuQ'eghmoH = put (clothes) on (yourself)

     This expands the potential meaning of the words. If you expected the
'egh meaning without the 'egh suffix, there would be no way to express
dressing or undressing someone else.

--   charghwI'

• Prev by Date: RE: Puncation revisited / Hos tlhIngan
• Next by Date: No Subject
• Prev by thread: Double Predicates and tuQ
• Next by thread: porghpu' porghDu' porghmey joq
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level