tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 22 09:47:02 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: {-chuq}
>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 00:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
>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.
Hmm. This is really an excellent question. Your example is simple enough
that it may not require a proper answer to this, though. We know that
indirect objects are sometimes treated as direct objects in Klingon, even
when direct objects are present in the sentence (as in the canon phrase
"ro'qegh'Iwchab HInob" from PK for "pass me the rokeg blood pie"), so I'd
say that you could use "-chuq" as you have it and that'd be fine. At
least, it sounds okay to my ear.
Byut your question remains a good one: In general, how can we indicate
this kind of reciprocity/each-otherness in contenxts that are not the
direct object (or equivalent)? I can't think of a really good answer from
canon. I can think of something that seems to work, but it may be overly
modeled on Terran forms. I don't see much wrong with "wa'vo' latlhvaD
nobmey nob charghwI' Holtej je", using "from one to the other." Trouble
is, it's ambiguous, since it could mean that they gave gifts from one other
thing to another, etc, but you have that in *many* languages. That'd
probably be my workaround of choice, but I admit that the question is a
good one.
>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?
Hmm... Can the wa'/latlh handle this one too? I suppose you could do
"peghmey tera'ngan romuluSngan je wa'vo' nIH latlh", but even when I've
wqaded through that it means "One of (the romulans and the terrans) stole
the other's secrets" (assuming the "wa'" doesn't really confuse stuff
with the plural subjects). This is tricky. Ah, "wa'vo' latlhvo' je
peghmey nIH tera'ngan romuluSngan je." That somehow sounds good to me.
Hmm. Something in me almost expects Klingon to have a word or phrase for
"and vice-versa" so you'd have to say "The terrans stole secrets from the
romulans and vice-versa"; I think it's because it feels like it would match
the spelling-out wordiness of the law'/puS construction.
I suspect this might have to be brought up with Okrand. the "?Hol
wIja'chuq" question has come up lots of times here.
>yoDtargh
~mark