tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 20 11:12:06 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: {-chuq}
Gee, I wish this one didn't have the KLBC header. Then I could
just wait for ~mark or Krankor to answer it. It's not easy.
According to R.B Franklin:
>
>
> 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.)
We can only guess at this. It is one of the things we want more
clearly explained from Okrand. If we didn't allow indirect
objects to be a part of the verb prefix, this would be simple.
{nobchuq} would be wrong because they are not giving each
other. They are giving TO each other. {latlhvaD nobmey nob
charghwI' Holtej je} might work, though {latlh} is a little
vague for this function.
Meanwhile, with verbs like {ja'chuq} explicitly in TKD, this
becomes difficult, since clearly "discuss" means to tell TO
each other, not just to tell each other as you might tell a
story. So this is messy.
> 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?
Again, {latlhvo' peghmey nIHta' tera'ngan romuluSngan je} might
do, though again, because of the vague nature of {latlh}, this
could mean that they teamed up and stole secrets from a third
person. Of course, perhaps this setting might generally mean
THE other one, with something like vay' serving for the more
outside version of "other" one.
> Another item is {ja'chuq}. It has a separate TKD entry, so can it
> violate the "no object verb prefix" rule?
This is exactly what the experts argue over without resolution.
> E.g. muDwanI' wIja'chuq jIH charghwI' je. (charghwI' and I discuss the
> weather.)
>
> yoDtargh
>
Obviously, this is why Klingons NEVER discuss the weather.
charghwI'