tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 30 12:32:10 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

mujatlhmoH nuq jay'

>>                     maja'chuqmeH Hol wIlo'
>> charghwI'

I used this sort of construction to say, "We talk *in* some language". E.g.,
{qajatlhmeH DIvI' Hol vIlo'} = "I speak to you in Fed.Standard". But actually
this sentence has a variety of possible interpretations. One of the things
Klingon seems to be annoyingly lacking is some way to express speaking
"*about* a topic". I don't like using {-'e'}, as Sorensen suggested in HolQeD
2:3, pg.8.

How to say, "I'm talking about the war"?? If there is indeed some as yet
unknown Type5 for that (let's call it 'X'), a Klingon would say {noHX
vIjatlhtaH}. That seems unlikely tho. There must be a better solution.

>     Reading my own post, I realize that this may not reflect the original
>meaning. That is when I recognize the crux of the problem. In English,
>"discuss" is potentially transitive with the topic of discussion being the
>object. In Klingon, {ja'chuq} is inherantly intransitive. Usually, we use
>{-moH} to make intransitive verbs transitive. Here, it doesn't make sense

>                         maja'chuqmoH Hol

>     Heh, heh. I like it. Kinda twists the brain a little, but I think it
>works. What think you?

>     For those wanting a hint at what I'm getting at, the topic is the thing
>that causes us to discuss, right? It becomes the SUBJECT of the causation
>aspect of the verb and we become the subject of the verb itself.

Without any certainty, I think it should be {nuja'chuqmoH Hol}. Whenever you
start mixing type Type1's with the Type4, the prefix always goes wacky. But,
you see, {ja'chuq} is not really accurately translated by "discuss" because,
like you said, "discuss" very often takes a verb, whereas {ja'chuq} never
would. Klingons would use it only when the topic under discussion is
indefinite or unimportant. There may be another verb meaning "talk about,
discuss (a topic)" in the still uncharted lexicon. But who's to say?

Even so, I like the implication that the topic under discussion could be
rendered the subject of the transitized, mutually reflexive verb of speaking.
Since I'm sure that makes whole bunches of sense to you, here it is in plain
and simple Klingon:

"I am talking about biology" mugh neHchugh vay'
vaj chaq jatlh {mujatlhmoH yInQeD}.

This is quite idiomatic. There must be other better solutions to express
"about". What think the rest of you?

>     In general, I think this whole {-moH} business could use a little more
>clarification. It essentially introduces a second verb and in the examples
>I've seen in canon, it becomes confusing to recognize which suffixes wind up
>applying themselves to the action of the verb or the causation aspect of it,
>much as here we have confusion over who is the subject of what.

>     What I'm TRYING to say is, I'm confused.



Okok. In my mind, {-moH} is a generic suffix (i.e., one that can be attached
to virtually any verb) to transitize it. English has similar suffixes, but
they vary with the verbs, and not all verbs use them.
We have "whiten" ({chISmoH}) and "redden" ({DoqmoH}), but there's no such
word as "greenen" or "bluen" or "brownen". Also "-ify" can go on quite a few
verbs to serve the same function as {-moH}.

One of these days, I'm gonna write something up for HolQeD about them damned
causatives and the Transitizer.

The way I see it, the Type 2's and the Type5 {-laH} cause the most trouble,
as to whether they should apply to the subject or object of a {-moH}ed verb.
I don't think the double-object-ness should change anything. They apply to
the subject, no matter what:

{yaS pumvIpmoH puq} = "The child is afraid to push the officer down".
It does not = "The child makes the officer afraid to fall". Imesho!

You catch my drift? Formulate your own opinions, but I'm sticking to this
one! This is a rich topic to debate. I'm extremely open to more talk on this
area of Klingon grammar. And here's something to get you started: What
happens to the prefix when you mix {-moH} with {-lu'}? That's all I'm going
to say.

Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos

Back to archive top level