tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 17 19:06:44 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: KLBC: compound words



jatlh peHruS:

> In a message dated 97-06-15 11:58:58 EDT, SuStel writes:
> 
> << (I also think that {ja'chuq} is just {ja'} + {-chuq}, and that it never
> takes 
>  an object.  The way it's used, though, makes it indistinguishable from a 
>  separate verb, and so trying to distinguish them is almost a moot point.  
>>
> 
> While I, too, use {ja'chuq} without any Object as if it were a Verb plus a
> Type 1 suffix, I am interested in your line of reasoning while claiming
> {HoSghaj} as a standalone Verb and not making the same claim regarding
> {ja'chuq}.

Certainly.  My reasoning:

{HoSghaj} is a standalone verb because there is no justification for making 
verb compounds.  Furthermore, {ghaj} is not a suffix.

{ja'chuq} is a verb plus suffix.  It follows other sentences like {peja''egh}, 
{yIja''egh}, {qaja'}, {choja'pa'}, etc., etc., etc, which have the person 
being spoken to as the object of the verb, and are all in TKD.  {ja'chuq} is 
included in the dictionary, but the others are not, because its meaning is a 
bit difficult to translate.  "Tell each other" SOUNDS funny when translated to 
English, so Okrand included the construction in the word list to assist in 
understanding.  Still, when you're conferring, that's exactly what you're 
doing: telling each other.

Besides, if you use it the same way I do, then what difference does it make?  
The problems only come in what you start to ask, "If {ja'chuq} is a distinct 
verb, can I say things like {may' wIja'chuq} or {yIja'chuq}?"

I'm not saying that {ja'chuq} MUST BE a verb plus suffix.  I'm saying that 
{ja'}, a verb of saying, could take {-chuq} and mean exactly what the gloss 
for {ja'chuq} means.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97461.9


Back to archive top level