tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 20 00:36:00 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: {-chuq}
- From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: KLBC: {-chuq}
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 00:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
One verb suffix which particularly annoys me is {-chuq}. Sec. 4.2.1 says
a verb with this suffix always uses a "no object" verb prefix. I
understand using {-chuq} when multiple subjects perform actions on each
other, and therefore each subject is the object of the other subject.
E.g. leghchuq wej SuvwI'pu'. The three warriors see each other.
In this case, there are 3 subjects, each of which is theoretically the
direct object of the other two subjects.
But what happens when you want use {-chuq} to connect the subjects with
indirect objects? Sec. 4.2.1 seems to imply you can't put an object
before the verb. Is it legal to say:
nobmey nobchuq charghwI' Holtej je. (charghwI' and Holtej give each
other gifts.)
In this case, charghwI' and Holtej are each the subject and indirect
object of the other's action while {nobmey} is the direct object.
Another example:
peghmey nIHchuqta' tera'ngan romuluSngan je. (The Terran and the Romulan
stole secrets from each other.) Is there a place to put the {-vo'}?
Is it required? Is this type of sentence correct? If not, is there a
way to say this without making two sentences? Can {-chuq} be used when
you want to use an object which is not one of the subjects? Can {-chuq}
be used with indirect objects?
Another item is {ja'chuq}. It has a separate TKD entry, so can it
violate the "no object verb prefix" rule?
E.g. muDwanI' wIja'chuq jIH charghwI' je. (charghwI' and I discuss the
weather.)
yoDtargh