tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 26 09:49:45 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: {-chuq}



>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 12:46:52 -0400
>>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>>Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 00:34:04 -0700 (PDT)

>>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.

As a beginner, I'm probably missing something, but why not just say:

    peghmey niHta' tera'nganvo' romuluSnganvo' je

This seems to convey the intended meaning, ie that they stole secrets and
that the theft was from themselves. Since they can't be stealing their own
secrets, they must be stealing from each other.

There's nothing I can find in TKD which says that subjects can't take the -vo'
suffix, though I admit there may not be many situations in which it would
be appropriate.

-- 
EEG



Back to archive top level