tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 07 13:36:46 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'



This isn't marked KLBC, so I started to give my own 
explanation, and then I noticed something I hadn't noticed before.  I 
think we are completely WRONG in the way we use ghojmoH ....

lab Qermaq:
> [from SuStel]
& wa'
& >jIHvaD mIw DayajmoH [SoH] 
& >You make me understand the procedure.

I looked at this and said 'no' then 'yes' then 'why?' then 'oh-oh'.

One of the places this indirect objects with -moH originated was 
with ghojmoH.  We translate ghojmoH as 'teach' so we accepted both:

puq vIghojmoH - I teach the child.
?pIqaD vIghojmoH  - I teach pIqaD

And then we wanted to say 'I teach the child pIqaD.' Given that the 
above two are right, ?<puqvaD pIqaD vIghojmoH> makes perfect sense.
But I have just realized that ?<pIqaD vIghojmoH> is either wrong, or 
an idiom we can't extend to other verbs.  In English 'teach' has two 
possible objects: the student and the subject.  The tlhIngan Hol 
<ghojmoH> can only reasonably take as an object the one who learns.  
So ?<puqvaD pIqaD vIghojmoH> means "I cause the Klingon writing 
system to learn for the benefit of the child,"  just as <wo'vaD negh 
vIghojmoH> means "I cause the soldiers to learn for the benefit of 
the Empire"  or "I teach the soldiers on behalf of the Empire."  See 
what we did?  MO quite validly (he even specifically mentions it in 
the text) condensed the meaning of ghojmoH "cause to learn" to 
"teach" and then we invalidly expanded it to mean "cause to be 
learned" as well.

Qermaq's ?<jIHvaD mIw DayajmoH> parallels the <ghojmoH> example quite 
neatly, but it seems to mean "You cause the procedure to understand 
for me."

& cha'
& tajvaD qama' pe'moH 'avwI'
& The guard makes the knife cut the prisoner.
& wej
& yaSvaD SoH qaqIpmoH [jIH]
& I cause the officer to hit you.

1. I doubt anyone accepts Qermaq's translations.
2. If you accept ?<puqvaD pIqaD vIghojmoH> as anything other than a 
non-extensible idiom, you have to accept Qermaq's sentences.

pIqaD ghoj puq  - The child learns pIqaD
mIw jIyaj [jIH] - I understand the procedure
qam'a' pe' taj - The knife cuts the prisoner
[SoH] DuqIp yaS - The officer hits you

?puqvaD pIqaD vIghojmoH 
?jIHvaD mIw DayajmoH
?tajvaD qam'a' vIpe'moH
?yaSvaD [SoH] qaqIpmoH

I now understand Qermaq's reasoning (right down to why he includes 
the bracketed pronouns).  It procedes logically from X-vaD Y 
vIghojmoH.  

& chay' pIm?

Indeed.  chay'?

If someone has canon of ghojmoH taking the thing taught as its 
object, please tell me it is accompanied by a note from MO that it is 
idiomatic. If not, it points to a lot of very ugly things, like this, 
which I am by no means advocating.

?jIHvaD mIw DayajmoH - You cause me to understand the procedure, you 
cause the procedure to be understood by me.
?mIw DayajmoH - You cause the procedure to be understood.
?mIw yaj - The understood procedure

Now you have to explain it to me AND Qermaq, if y'all still want to 
use the thing taught as the object of ghojmoH.

  - Qov, who isn't going to say <tlhIngan Hol vIghojqangmoH> anymore.

jIHmo' tlhIngan Hol boghojlaH .
tlhIngan Hol boghojmeH SaghojqangmoH
tlhIngan Hol boghoj 'e' vIboQqang
'ach tlhIHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoHbe'.  Hol 'oH tlhIngan 
Hol.  ghojlaHbe'. tlhIHvaD Qu'vam QIp vIruchbe'.

Robyn Stewart                     [email protected]
NLK Technical Library  ph. (604) 689-0344 fax (604) 443-1000
NLK Consultants Inc. 855 Homer Street, Vancouver BC  V6B 5S2


Back to archive top level