tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 24 03:51:14 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: All Permutations...
>From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:55:51 -0500
>Content-Length: 1864
>I was just thinking about something that I'm going to do right now, just
>for kicks. I'm going to take a verb out of the dictionary, and apply just
>about every suffix to it, and try to translate the results into English.
>Why do this? I dunno, but it sounded like a good idea. Maybe I'll get
>something wrong in translation, and someone can help out.
>What word to use? How about vIH: to move.
Not the best choice, as it turns out. See, we are told in the definition
that "vIH" means "to move" in the *intransitive* sense, i.e. to be in
motion. Some of your translations are predicated on the assumption that it
can be transitive too, like English.
>vIHchuq: To move each other?
>vIH'egh: <doesn't work?>
Neither works. Both -'egh and -chuq only make sense on transitive verbs.
To move each other would be "vIHchuqmoH" (yes, I know it seems more
sensible to say "*vIHmoHchuq", but we don't. Cope. See the suffix-class
numbers.)
>vIHbeH: <subject> is ready to move (devices)
>vIHnIS: <subject> needs to move
>vIHqang: <subject> is willing to move
>vIHrup: <subject> is ready to move (being)
>vIHvIp: <subject> is afraid to move
>vIHchoH: <subject> is starting to move
>vIHqa': to move again
Right, but remember that it's "to move" in the sense of "move itself".
>vIHmoH: to cause to move, to move <object>
*This* is the transitive "moving".
>vIHlu': something moves?
According to the discussion we're having regarding -lu', yes. charghwI'
doesn't like this usage, it should be noted.
>vIHtaH: is being moved
No, is moving. Is being moved implies an agent and a causative.
>vIHta': has been moved
Has moved. Same as vIHpu', except with volition.
>vIHneS: <doesn't work?>
Works, I guess... "It moves" (same as "vIH"), with the added implication
that I'm addressing the person I'm talking to politely. cf. "DojneS
mIplIj" from CK: Your welth is impressive, your honor.
>I'll leave out all the clause markers for simplicity...
>vIHghach: movement?
If permitted; there's some disagreement.
>vIHjaj: may move
More like "may it move"; "may move" sounds like a conditional or something.
This is a wish of sorts.
>vIHwI': mover
Thing that is in motion, not thing that is moving other things.
>vIHbe': to not move, to leave motionless
To *remain* motionless, not to leave something else motionless.
>vIHHa': to move back, to replace
Not to me; sounds more like "to move badly" or "move wrongly". I've never
seen a "back" meaning to "-Ha'"
>vIHqu': to MOVE!
>vIHQo': don't move
More like "to refuse to move".
>What has this shown? Dunno. But it was kinda neat. Obviously we can
>put these things together:
>vIHHa'vIpqa': subject is afraid to move object back.
No, see, you have a subject and an object here, and vIH only takes a
subject. You need "-moH" for that. And I still don't buy "vIHHa'" for
"move back".
>For anyone poetically inclined, I'd venture to say there are a couple of
>overlapping meanings (or at least, overlapping expressions) here. If
>you don't want someone moving something, you can use vIHQo'; but might
>I suggest vIHbe' (when given as a command) as a suitable replacement? I'm
>not sure I can come for a reason why:
>yIvIHbe' isn't any different than yIvIHQo'.
I can: *yIvIHbe' isn't used for obscure reasons: it says so in black ad
white on page 47, Section 4.3. "The suffix -be' cannot be used with
imperative verbs."
>...Paul
~mark