tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 12 00:28:56 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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


I'm guessing that this verb has been discussed before. If so, sorry for
resurrecting an old debate.

Considering the incredibly screwed-up and annoying verb {tuQ}. It means
simply "wear (clothes)." But then {tuQmoH} means "put on (clothes)." It
doesn't seem to follow the pattern. Saying {vItuQmoH} doesn't say to me "I
put clothes on." It means "I cause something to wear (clothes)."

There are several possible explanations.

Maybe the object of {tuQmoH} is a person who is being dressed. As in {ghu
tuQmoH SoS}. In that case, I would say {jItuQ'eghmoH} for "I get dressed," or
"I put clothes on."

In any case, how would one refer to the clothes being worn. As in, "The
mother put socks on the infant." It might come out with that double predicate
thingy. Perhaps: {paSlogh tuQ ghu 'e' qaSmoH SoS}.

But then what about, "The mother puts socks on herself." If one said {paSlogh
tuQ 'e' qaSmoH SoS}, there's always the ambiguity of "Mother puts socks on
*him*," (an implicit {ghaH}). You could repeat {SoS}, but then it starts
sounding even more convoluted. That's not the way peoples talk.

We seem to be dealing with that "Mary-caused-Bill-to-cheat-the- Ferengi"
problem. It could get very messy.

"What about canonical uses of {tuQ}?" asks the insightul reader. Well, I
could find only one (tho there may be more out there). In HolQeD 2:4 pg.17 ,
Okrand gives us several new words, and with them, a new secrecy proverb that
uses one of those new words: {qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'}. "I have taken off my
ears/belt." It would seem that in this case, the object is the article of

Now before anyone goes jumping to conclusions with this {tuQmoHHa'} business,
saying maybe {tuQmoH} is a root in its own right and has nothing to do with
the suffix {-moH}, I'd like to explain something. If indeed Okrand meant
{tuQmoHHa'} to mean "take off," then he violated his own dictionary (not the
first time imesho) which lists {tuQHa'moH} for "undress", both on the E-K and
K-E sides. So, the {-moH} syllable here is indeed the old type 4 transitizing
suffix we've all come to know and love. Or at least, to know and tolerate.

According to his own dictionary, Okrand is saying, "I have undressed my
ears." But then, the metaphor implying that the ears are articles of clothing
is destroyed, and it loses its value as a secrecy proverb.

One of these days, I wish someone would just sit down and have a
loooooooooong talk with the pabpo' pIn'a'qoq.

Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos

Back to archive top level