tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 20 11:12:06 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[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'



Back to archive top level