tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 11 15:15:58 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: ja'chuq

January 10, 1997 3:22 AM EST, jatlh 'Iwvan:

> David Trimboli wrote:
> > We have often wondered whether {ja'chuq} is the verb {ja'} plus the suffix
> > {-chuq}, or if it's a single root verb, {ja'chuq}.  Well, Okrand tells us!
> > On TKD p. 65, he says, "The verb is made up of {ja'} 'tell,' {-chuq} 'each
> > other'; thus, 'confer' is 'tell each other'."
> 
> <looks it up>  So he does.  Conveniently overlooking the fact that _tell_
> is a ditransitive verb in English.

*Can be*.  Its use may not always be ditransitive.  "I told the story."  Sure, 
there may be a context which provides the information of who's hearing the 
story, but that's irrelevant.

> > The implication would be that {ja'chuq} cannot take an object.  When
> > using {-chuq}, you must use the prefix meaning "no object,"  and the
> > subject must be plural.  Thus, you cannot say things like {Dup wIja'chuq}
> > for "We discuss strategy."  You'd have to say {maja'chuqtaHvIS Duq wIqel}.
> 
> I wonder.  We've known since {ghIchlIj qanob} times that Klingon has
> ditransitive verbs, even though no mention of them is made in _tKD_.
> We still don't know how (if at all) they work if both objects are
> expressed by full noun phrases or if neither is third person, but
> that's beside the point.  Now _tKD_ 4.2.1 says that the reflexives
> and reciprocals of transitive verbs are intransitive verbs, which is
> what one would expect.  But by the same token the reflexives and
> reciprocals of ditransitive verbs would be (mono)transitive verbs.
> As in:
> 
>   {SoHvaD De' vIja'.}  `I tell you the news.'

So far, we have one example from Okrand of {ja'} (I believe), and the object 
of that verb is "you."  {qaja'pu'} TKD p. 67.  I'm willing to accept that it 
may take another type of object, but we've got no evidence.

>   {De' qaja'.}  ditto  (if {ja'} is ditransitive; it sure looks that way)

Now you've got the right object, but the example on page 67 is NOT 
ditransitive.  It has exactly one object: "you."  This object is only seen in 
the verb prefix.  The quotation, {HIqaghQo'}, is NOT an object.  Quotations 
can go on either end of the sentence.  I can say {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'} "I told 
you not to interrupt me!"

>   {De' wIja'chuq.}  `We tell one another (_or_ discuss) the news.'

Given what we definitely know about {ja'}, then one valid way to say this 
would be to quote the news.  {maja'chuq <maHoH>}  "We told each other 'We're 
going to die!'"  This limits greatly the uses of {ja'chuq}, but I don't mind, 
since we don't really know much about how to use it, anyway.

> Hrm.  On the other hand, it seems plausible that {ja'chuq} is like {ja'},
> which is like {nob}, in that they all have an object (the information
> told or the entity given) to which they do not refer by means of a prefix
> (because object agreement is used for encoding the addressee).  Which
> would lead to {De' maja'chuq}.

Again, given explicit information on this by Okrand, I'd be happy.  Without 
it, I'd be just as inclined to accept {De' maja'chqu} as {De' wIja'chuq}.  
Each is supportable, but only on the basis of its English translations.

> > I wouldn't go so far as to do anything with the verb {tuQ} and its
> > weirdness (there is canon somewhere supporting the fact that {tuQmoH}
> > is a different verb than {tuQ} + {-moH}), I noticed it recently
> > somewhere).
> 
> So do we say {tuQnISmoH} or {tuQmoHnIS}?

I just said, I'm not willing to make a judgement!  We need more information.  
And this isn't even the relevant problem.  "I wear the helmet" is {mIv vItuQ}. 
 According to TKD's gloss, "I put on the helmet" should be {mIv vItuQmoH}, 
although if this were just {tuQ} + {-moH}, it would really mean "I cause the 
helmet to wear."  See?  {tuQmoH} *seems* to be a unique verb.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97031.5

Back to archive top level