tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 23 04:14:11 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: open can of worms
According to [email protected]:
[Stuff about liquid equivalent to verb "feed"]
...
> My intent was to point out the gap in the *English*. But it is true that this
> gap spills into Klingon (pun intended!). {je'} is probably just a synonym for
> {SopmoH}, which makes it interesting, because is its object the eater or the
> eaten?
>
> It's most likely this:
> {targhvaD Qa' lom chu' je' toy'wI'}
I disagree, since our only canonical use of the verb is in ST3
when, as he exited, Kruge turned to a crew member and pointed
to his targ yelling, "yIje'!" which was translated as "feed
him." One presumed by the rather unsettled expression on the
crew member's face, this process may be somewhat unpleasant...
Anyway, my take of this canon is that the object of {je'} is
the living being that is being offered the food. To convey your
intended sentence, I would prefer:
targh je'meH toy'wI' 'oHvaD Qa' lom chu' nob ghaH.
> It becomes odd when one substitutes {SopmoH}.
I don't assume that these are good synonyms. {vISopmoH} would
strike me as being closer to {vISopmeH HoS vIlo'}, or "force
feed." I think that "feed" implies "offer food" more than
"cause to eat".
> I am still wondering what one
> should do when tacking {-moH} onto an already transitive verb.
Simple. Don't.
> I thought of
> using {-vaD} on the noun which is the patient of the cause and agent of the
> verb while having the patient of the verb remain the object, but that's
> confusing, so I'd stick to {...'e' qaSmoH} and shy away from tacking {-moH}
> onto transitive verbs, unless the patient of the verb is indefinite:
>
> {targh tlhutlhmoH toy'wI'} (liquid sustenance unnamed)
Exactly. Although {tlhutlhmoH} brings up images of half
drowning the beast, forcing it to take in liquid... How about
{targhvaD bIQ nob toy'wI'}?
> ghuy'Do wa' -- jpj* -- loDHom Doj
> Guido#1 -- aka -- BoyWonder
>
> *jpj = jaS ponglu'meH je
wejpuH.
charghwI'