tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 29 10:33:57 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Hoghvam

>> Ugh. I wanted that nifty double predicate thing... Lemme think a bit: 
>> Could {Hol majatlhchuq} work? Yes, I know it looks like a wrong prefix,
>
>Err, object. Double object. Not predicate. Sorry.

Well, I seem to have largely lost the thread of this conversation,
but let me just interject a thing or two.

First off, I seem to recall that this all started with a rather
erroneous listing of "jatlhchuq" as "to discuss".  "to discuss" is
ja'chuq.

Second, "Hol maja'chuq" is certainly correct Klingon for "We discuss
[a,the] language".  While it may *look* like the wrong prefix, it is
not.  Hol is NOT the object here, it is one of those other nouns
"indicating something other than subject or object", which go
"first, before the object noun", as per 6.1, page 60.  While such
nouns usually take a type 5 noun suffix, they are not required to.
This sentence fits that case.  There simply is no object per se,
having been precluded by the -chuq suffix.

Now, of course, it is possible that one could claim that ja'chuq, by
being listed separately, is a full verb unto itself, not a
combination of ja + -chuq, and, as such, it should be:  Hol
wIja'chuq.  I personally do not subscribe to this theory, nor, I
believe, do very many people here.  But if you really wanted to do
it that way, I couldn't tell you you were wrong.

                    --Krankor

Back to archive top level