tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 23 23:51:59 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: open can of worms
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: open can of worms
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 11:47:32 EDT
Qonglaw'taHvIS yabDaj ghItlh charghwI''e':
>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.
You appear to be quite right. TKD lists it as "feed (someone else)".
>> 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".
{vISopmeH HoS vIlo'} does not mean anything near "force feed". Look at it
again: "I eat it with force". Just don't forget about {pe'vIl}. But I do get
your point. {je'} is indeed closer to "offer food". If I want a certain food
mentioned, I'd do it like so:
{targhvaD Qa' lom chu' Soj nob}
NB, this N-N construction does not show possession, but indicates the type of
food, i.e., "the food of a fresh Qa' corpse"/"the nourishment contained in
the crispy-fresh carcass of a Qa'"/"the food that is contained in a
mouth-watering, succulent, crispy-fresh hunk of Qa' meat".
charghwI' vIghungmoHta'mo' ghem SuqmeH De'wI'vo' nom qettaH DaH net Qoylaw'.
>> 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'}?
Well, it's not quite {pe'vIl tlhutlhmoH}. You can't condemn using {-moH} on
transitive verbs, despite the rarity of its necessity on such verbs.
>> ghuy'Do wa' -- jpj* -- loDHom Doj
>> Guido#1 -- aka -- BoyWonder
>>
>> *jpj = jaS ponglu'meH je
>wejpuH.
>charghwI'
ghuy'cha' HollaHwIjvaD <wejpuH> Dajatlhmo' qaqaD: [sadomasochism] DaQummeH
mu''e' yI'ogh jay'!
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos