tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 30 10:47:36 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu'qaD - KLBC
According to R.B Franklin:
>
> Sun, 28 May 1995 ghItlh 'Iwvan:
>
> > On Fri, 26 May 1995 02:57:29 -0400, "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]> said:
> >
> > > {tuQmoH} is listed in TKD as "to put on (clothes)" but it literally means
> > > "to cause to wear". {Sut tlhaQ DutuQmoH SoSlI'} means "Your mother puts
> > > on you funny clothing" or "Your mother causes you to wear funny clothing".
The problem here is that Okrand has not clarified how to use
{-moH} on a transitive verb, and we seem to interpret {tuQ} as
transitive. If we take it to be intransitive, as if I say,
{jItuQ} "I wear (clothes)", as opposed to {jItuQbe'}, which I
suppose would mean that I am nude, then {DutuQmoH SoSlI'} would
mean that your mother makes you wear clothes. Of course, then
{Sut tlhaQ} has no place in the sentence. If instead we
consider {tuQ} to be transitive, then things get complex.
I'd skip the whole business and say:
DutuQmoHmeH Sut tlhaQ wIv SoSlI'.
This splits out the objects to different verbs. I like your
suggestion, but it needs a little explanation we have not yet
gotten from Okrand.
> > {Du-} is supposed to indicate a second person singular object (as in
> > {[SoH] Dulegh} `(s)he sees you'), but this sentence has a third person
> > object, {Sut tlhaQ}. Is {tuQmoH} being used as a ditransitive verb (one
> > with two objects) here? If so, how would one say `The mother causes
> > the child to wear funny clothes'? {Sut tlhaQ puq tuQmoH SoS}?
> > {puq Sut tlhaQ tuQmoH SoS}?
puq tuQmoHmeH SoS Sut tlhaQ wIv SoS.
> Klingon seems to have three ways to express a sentence with two objects.
[I've clipped the three examples for brevity, but very much
appreciated their presence to back up your point]
> It is interesting to note that verb prefixes seems to be able to indicate
> either the direct object or indirect object of the verb as indicated by
> 1 & 3 above.
In this, I think it very much immitates English. "Give me the
knife." "Give the knife to me." In the first example, we
recognize the indirect object by its position and accept the
missing preposition. In Klingon, we recognize that the prefix
is pointing to an indirect object and accept the lack of Type 5
suffix (especially since you can't put a suffix on a prefix).
{taj *HIvaDnob*}?
> To say "The mother causes the son to wear funny clothing", I would
> consider {Sut tlhaQ} to be the object of {tuQmoH} and use {-Daq} to
> indicate where the action described by the verb takes place, and say:
> puqDaq Sut tlhaQ tuQmoH SoS.
I think this works, though I'd be happier if Okrand would come
out and sanction it or explain why it should be different. Like
the verb {pong}, I think it does not have an obvious useage,
given the general grammar. It sits in a clash among rules. I
might also consider {-vaD} instead of {-Daq}.
Still, some people consider {tuQmoH} to imply putting clothes
on ones self, which would mean that Mom could be dressing funny
for the benefit of the child, or at the location of the child.
Again, TKD doesn't tell us whether {tuQmoH} is something one
does to ones self or to another. That's another point that
Okrnad should address.
> > --'Iwvan
>
> yoDtargh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |