tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 04 08:25:13 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: More Translations...
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: More Translations...
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 10:25:11 CST
- In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Dec 1996 18:54:06 PST." <[email protected]>
> > K: tIghmeylIj HIghojmoH.
> > E: Teach me your customs.
>
> Here's another double-object problem. charghwI', of course, would adore it,
> but I don't. Here's why.
>
> {HIghojmoH} means "teach me." More literally according to the Klingon, it
> means "cause me to learn." The subject is "you." What's the object? The
> object is "me."
>
> But if {HIghojmoH} already has a subject and an object, then what part of
> speech is {tIghmeylIj}? It doesn't have a place! The way to avoid this
> problem is to remember that {ghojmoH} doesn't simply mean "teach," it means
> "cause to learn."
>
> This is another sentence which must be expanded. Here's one way:
>
> tIghmeylIj vIHaD vIneH. HIghojmoH.
>
This is just to check whether I understood that thing with {-moH} on
transitive verbs correctly:
The object of {ghoj} is the subject (= topic :) you learn about, so that
should still be the object of {ghojmoH}, right?
The subject of {ghoj} should become the "indirect object" of {ghojmoH},
right?
So it should be {jIHvaD tIghmeylIj tIghojmoH}, right?
> > K: mIvvetlh yItuQmoHQo'.
> > E: Don't put that helmet on.
>
> Ugh. This one is probably the worst of the lot. The problem is similar to
> the one with {ghojmoH}. There's an added complication. The object of the
> English translation of {tuQmoH} "put on (clothes)" would be the piece of
> clothing. The object of the English translation of {tuQHa'moH} "undress"
> could NOT be the clothing, it would have to be the person who is being
> undressed. The negation of a verb seems to be changing its object!
>
I don't think so.
> Some might interpret this as evidence that words which are verbs with
> suffixes and which are extra entries in the dictionary are seperate words
> in their own right, and they work just like their English glosses. I
> still don't buy it. My guess is that Okrand simply did a sloppy job
> explaining this.
>
> In fact, I'm not even sure if {tuQ} is transitive! {jItuQ} *could* mean, "I
> wear clothing," and that could be the end of it. Still, I don't really
> believe this. I shall examine your sentence with the assumption that {tuQ}
> is transitive, and the object is the article of clothing. (And please take
> any further debate of this subject out of KLBC!)
>
That's what I did, though I think most of my questions still belong
under KLBC...
> mIvvetlh yItuQchoHQo'!
> Don't start wearing that helmet!
>
> Surely, this takes care of the "put on" idea, right?
>
If {tuQ} is transitive in the sense above and my understanding of
{-moH} on transitive verbs (as further above :) is O.K., then
{mIv vItuQ} is "I wear a helmet.", right?
{jIHvaD mIv vItuQmoH} is "I put on a helmet.", right?
{SoHvaD mIv vItuQmoH} is "I cause you to wear a helmet.", right?
(meaning that I put it on you or s.th., excuse my English here.)
{SoHvaD mIv yItuQmoH} is "Put on the helmet!", right?
And finally, {SoHvaD mIvvetlh yItuQmoHQo'} is "Don't put on that helmet!",
right?
As for {tuQHa'moH}: {tuQHa'} means "miswear" to me, so I think
{tuQHa'moH} is more probably derived from {tuQmoH}, i.e. it means
"put off (clothes)" and the clothes are still the direct object
while the one being undressed is the indirect object. Thus
"I undress him." becomes {ghaHvaD jItuQHa'moH}, which makes
perfect sense to me, even though there's a "no object" prefix
on a {-moH}-ed verb. To me this is similar to {jISop}, you
don't specify _what_ you are taking off of him. If you just
remove his boots, "I take off his boots." becomes {ghaHvaD
DaS vItuQHa'moH}. Right?
(btw: if I'm wearing his boots, then taking them off would
have to be {jIHvaD DaSDaj vItuQmoH}, right?)
HomDoq