tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 22 07:56:12 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Analysis of {mo'taq lut}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Analysis of {mo'taq lut}
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 10:56:09 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Jeremy Cowan" at Mar 21, 95 11:28 pm
According to Jeremy Cowan:
...
> > * qeq qeylIS 'e' tlhob mo'taq
> > @ Motak asked that Kahless [should] train
> > === I suspect that {qeq} is intransitive only, and thus this sentence is like
> > me telling Cousteau to go learn how to scuba dive; likely {qeq} here should be
> > {qeqmoH} = "cause (Motak) to practise, train (Motak)" (trans.).
>
> Personally, I believe that qeq is only transitive. The meaning that you
> read in qeq should be qeq'egh.
Here, I side with Appleyard. With a definition like, "practice,
train, prepare", the multiple words usually indicate the common
meaning of the collection of words. All three words can be
transitive or intransitive, but the intransitive meanings are
the same for all three, while the transitive meanings point to
different objects. You train a person for a process. You
prepare a person for a process. You practice a process.
Meanwhile, you practice, you train or you prepare with no need
for an object. The most common meaning seems to be intransitive.
> I also use two separate meanings for vaj and SuvwI'. I use SuvwI' to
> mean, "a fighter who does not deserve the title 'warrior'". This is
> usually either an untrained fighter or a un-honourable fighter.
nuq? Right there in the appendix: SuvwI' = warrior. What is the
big deal here?
> Since we don't have a word for summon and most anyone would understand
> this I decide to leave it. rI' (suggested by charghwI') seems less
> (although not wholly un-) likely to mean 'summon'.
I still like rI' better than pong.
> > * 'ach 'etlh lo'laHbe'chu' mo'taq 'ej 'e' leghlaH Ha'DIbaH
> > @ But Motak was clearly worthless (with his?) sword and animal could see that
>
> I have to admit that I do not have a complete grasp of -chu'. I meant it
> to refer to his level of expertise, not the certainty of his inability.
> Since it was that expertise that did not exist, would it be clearer to say-
> 'etlh lo'laHchu'be' mo'taq
Yes, this has a completely different meaning. Motak imperfectly
could use his sword.
> > * Ha'DIbaH tIq tu'laH mo'taq 'e' qItpu'
> > ---- tIq ---- - V:be_long_of_object - N:heart
> > @ It was possible that Motak could find animal's heart
> > @ It was possible that Motak could find the long animal
> > === Homophone ambiguity again
>
> The first is what I meant. Any suggestions for how to clear this up?
Context makes it pretty clear what you meant. You could tack on
{-na'} if you want. It is somewhat superfluous in meaning, but
definitely tags {tIq} as a noun.
> janSIy
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |