tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 29 18:16:45 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: *(ghot jIchu')

Jeff Zeitlin writes:
> DaH naDev vIpawta'     <I have now arrived here>

I'll return to the {vI-} vs. {jI-} prefix discussion in a moment...

> Also, is there a verb suffix that has the sense of "result/
> product of", for example: {jeS}, to discuss -> {jeS*},
> discussion?

Well, {-ghach} might work in some cases.  But usually something like
this isn't necessary in tlhIngan Hol.  English has a tendency to use
nouns everywhere, but Klingon is very good at using verbs to express
meanings.  Instead of saying "in yesterday's discussion", for example,
say "yesterday while we were discussing".

By the way, {jeS} means "participate".  "discuss" is {ja'chuq}, which
is apparently just {ja'} + {-chuq} "tell each other".

> As to your second suggestion, {naDev jIchu'}:  This confuses me
> somewhat.  As you indicated, the {jI-} prefix indicated no
> object, thus leaving my {ghot} hanging.  Why does this not
> occur with respect to your {naDev} as well?  TKD indicates that
> both {naDev} and {ghot} are of the same part of speech (noun)
> and the construction clearly places them both as putative
> objects of the verb {chu'}.

Ah, but I'm not using {naDev} as an object, I'm using it as a locative.
It doesn't tell what is being "new'ed" (whatever that might mean), it
indicates where the action of the sentence is taking place.  See the
discussion of {-Daq} in TKD section 3.3.5, and notice the special case
of {naDev}, {pa'}, and {Dat}.  The {jI-} prefix is the definitive clue
that {naDev} isn't intended to be the object of the verb.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level