tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 20 08:12:55 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingons conquer Worlds Chat (sort of...)
>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 09:17:01 -0800
>From: "Christian Matzke" <[email protected]>
>On 19 Dec 95 at 8:19, Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 18:30:12 -0800
>> >From: "Christian Matzke" <[email protected]>
>>
>> >cyber sex: nga'chuqqoq
>>
>> Isn't nga'chuq a verb?
>Uh, it says in HolQeD 1:3 "sex (i.e., perform sex; always SUBJECT)" my
>emphasis. I don't see how a verb could be the subject of a sentance.
>HOWEVER, since it clearly has a verbal suffix on it and 4:2:9 says
>"verbs ending in suffixes... can never be nouns" it's a bit hinky.
>Since we have ngagh (v) then I don't think we need nga'chuq as a verb
>too.
I don't really agree. Bear in mind that "ngagh" came out much after
nga'chuq. Look at the definition of nga'chuq: "i.e. perform sex". Plainly
a *verbal* definition. You would never define a noun by explaining that it
means "to perform" something. I interpret the "always subject" comment to
mean that the actors involved must always be the subjects of the verb,
not one the subject and one the object (to emphasize what should be plain
from the "-chuq" suffix). That is, to say that Maltz has sex with Mara, I
need to say "nga'chuq matlh mara je", and not make one the subject and the
other the object (or object of a preposition as in English). It would be
very strange if it meant that "nga'chuq" was a noun that could never be an
object. How could you say "he enjoyed nga'chuq", etc? The only similar
thing is the pronoun 'e', which can only be an object... but that's a
pronoun/chuvmey, not a noun.
~mark