tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 08 12:39:20 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -chuq and Object?
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: -chuq and Object?
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 12:38:47 -0800
At 09:14 97-12-08 -0800, HovqIj wrote:
> vumnISqu'law' Qov 'ach ghaH vInuQnIS.
teHbe'. jIvumnISqu'be'. jIbuD neH. tunuQbe'.
> (Is {nuQ} the right word for "to bother"?)
HIja'. <Suj> <boj> je tIqel.
> I just came across the following problem:
> How do I say, e.g. "We told each other the story."
>
> In 4.2.1 TKD tells us to use the no-object-prefix when a verb has
> the suffix {-chuq}. But what do I say when a verb requires two
> objects (here: "each other" and "the story")? Can I just say: lut
> wIja'chuq ?
peghuH! naDev Seng law' tu'lu'! loS qaywI'mey Datu'.
1. The section you cite is the only information we have on objects of
reflexive verbs (those with {-chuq} or {'egh}, indicating that the
action of the verb is performed ont he subject). While there may
be exceptions to that rule that Maltz didn't think of while TKD was
being put together, as far as we know a reflexive verb can't take an
additional object (*).
2. The verb {ja'chuq} is glossed as "discuss" not as "tell each
other." We aren't certain if this is just a convenient way of
translating a regularly formed meaning of {ja'} + {-chuq}, if
this is a word divorced from its origins to take on a divergent
meaning, or if it's a completely independent word that has
the form of a related meaning verb + suffix. It may be that {?lut
wIja'chuq} means "we discuss the story" with no reflexive
implications. I feel that {ja'chuq} IS reflexive.
> Or maybe I need a relative clause: maja'chuqbogh 'oH
> lut'e' (The story is, what we told each other) ?
Using a relative clause does not escape the problem of assigning an
additional object to {ja'chuq}. The only thing that could be the
head of the relative clause is the subject or object of the verb:
{maH}.
3. You've also dropped in what is known as a "headless relative," yet
another can of very lively qagh. Not even the supporters of headless
relatives would accept this one, though, because you've tried to
imply a different object to the relative clause than one would
assume from the prefix, the verb and tlhIngan Hol pab rom.
> Or is it something completely different?
4. If it were any other verb, I'd say take it like an indirect
object, and write {?maHvaD lut wIja'} "we tell the story to us."
BUT we've never seen {ja'} take any object other than the person
addressed. The verb that we know can take as an object the thing
spoken is {jatlh}. Therefore, "we tell each other the story" would
be {maHvaD lut wIjatlh}. You can also consider what you mean by "we
tell each other the story" and then use phrases like {quqtaHvIS} or
{mamobtaHvIS}. I'm personally quite happy with {lut ja'} for "tell
a story" but I'm supposed to be teaching Okrandian Klingon here, not
the Qovian, Krankorian or charghwI'ian dialects.
yItungQo', HovqIj. Be aware of the opinions and form your own when
you are ready to. :-)
*note: I say 'additional' because I consider {maH} to be both the
subject and object of this construction, not just the subject.
This distinction is relevant only in deciding whether {maH maja'chuq}
"we talk to EACH OTHER" is valid. I think it is, but I've noticed
myself avoiding it when I'm trying to be strictly correct so I must
suspect it slightly. :)
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian