tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 14 00:02:01 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {tuQ}

> 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)."

     Interesting point. I think this gets back to transitive/intransitive
stuff. Usually {-moH} changes an intransitive verb into a transitive one. The
problem here is that {tuQ} is already potentially transitive.

> 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."

     Of course, that could also be expressed perhaps more clearly as

> 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}.

     I made several attempts at alternatives and I like yours more.

> 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.

     I'd prefer {paSlogh tuQchoH SoS}.

> 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
> clothing.
> Now before anyone goes jumping to conclusions with this {tuQmoHHa'}
> 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
> first time imesho) which lists {tuQHa'moH} for "undress", both on the E-K
> K-E sides. So, the {-moH} syllable here is indeed the old type 4
> 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
> 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

     Yep. Once again, you've found a tender spot in the white underbelly of
the Klingon language as used by Okrand.


Back to archive top level