tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 19 17:05:49 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: HeghmoH

qej 'ej naS Qov:

> eduardo fonesca writes:
> 
> & ghaH HeghmoH QIDvetlh - That wound kills him.
> & (That wound cause him to die)
> &
> & Because the wound doesn't kill, but cause the death.
> 
> Ooooh.  SuStel vInIS vIneHbe'mo' Edy vIjangbe' 'ach bong Seng le' 
> tu'law' Edy. chovnatlh Daj 'oH <HeghmoH>'e'.  Holna' 'oHbej tlhIngan 
> Hol.  pabtaHvIS chu'wI' lumer mu' Huj. DaH Edy mISmoHbe'meH HojnIS 
> SuStel.
> 
> peQub:
> ghaH HeghmoH ghu'.
> ghaHvaD HeghmoH ghu'.
> 
> muj'a' wa'? lugh'a' cha'?
> 
> SKI: Edy has followed a rule into a 'fatal' question.  Qov waits to 
> see how SuStel gets out of this one.

I certainly wish Qov would make her reason for all of this nastiness plain.

I "get out of this one" by restating that I don't think that {HeghmoH} IS a 
qualitative verb.  I think it's just {Hegh} + {-moH}.  In this case, {ghaH 
HeghmoH QIDvetlh} is just fine.  Even if {HeghmoH} IS a qualitative verb all 
of its own, Edy is still using {Hegh} + {-moH}.

But fine, if you believe that {HeghmoH} is a distinct verb, AND if you believe 
that you cannot say {Hegh} + {-moH} for some reason, then you have a point.  
Now, so the beginners can understand why (as opposed to being confused by all 
of this hostility), let me make an example:

Consider the qualitative verb, {qej} "be grouchy, mean."  I can say {qej 
*Qov*} "Qov is grouchy."  This just states things in general, it doesn't say 
what Qov is grouchy about or to whom she is grouchy.

If I DO want to specify that she is grouchy to ME, then I indicate this by 
showing that {jIH} is the beneficiary, or recipient, of her being grouchy.  
This is the noun suffix {-vaD}, on TKD pp.28-29.

jIHvaD qej *Qov*
Qov is grouchy to me.  (Qov is grouchy, and I am the recipient of her 
grouchiness.)

Now, because TKD has an entry {HeghmoH} "be fatal," Qov is asking if this is 
just as qualitative a verb as {qej} "be grouchy."  If it is, we should be able 
to just substitute it in to where we originally had {qej}:

ghaHvaD HeghmoH QID

By this theory, this means "the wound is fatal, and this fatalness is applied 
to me."

However, one can also the verb {Hegh} "die," and the verb suffix {-moH} 
"cause."  Together, they give us {HeghmoH} "cause to die."  It just so happens 
that "cause to die" means exactly the same thing as "be fatal."  Using this 
verb and this suffix, we have

ghaH HeghmoH QID

By this theory, this means "the wound causes him to die."

Now, Qov is making all the fuss because I often point to how the English gloss 
of a word is used in English, and say that it's probably been written that 
particular way to mimic how the Klingon word is used.  She then assumes that I 
mean that a word like {HeghmoH} in the dictionary is glossed "be fatal," and 
that I will automatically be "pedantic" and assume that {HeghmoH} follows that 
exact pattern.  This is not, in fact, what I assume.  I believe that Okrand 
included that gloss in there to show how a possibly common useage of the verb 
might work.

But to continue: Qov sees the last Klingon sentence above, and says, "Aha!  
Since {HeghmoH} is glossed as "be fatal," SuStel is saying 'The wound is fatal 
him.'"  However, remember, this would only be the case if {HeghmoH} is a verb 
which is entirely different from a similar word, {Hegh}.

Neither Qov nor I have any proof to show that how we see things is definitely 
the correct way to do it.  As is always the case, I choose to use and promote 
those things which I believe are right, or which I logically or intuitively 
infer.  NO ONE IS FORCED TO AGREE WITH ME, including Qov.  I honestly try to 
show the various sides of a debate when a beginner hits a snag in the language 
(and every one of them do, almost every message), but I'm afraid I'm going to 
be biased towards that which I believe is right.  If anyone's got any 
specifics they'd like to discuss, I'm all ears.

Or would you have me teach beginners that verb compounds are just fine?

But I hardly think Qov's current attitude is constructive.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97467.4

Back to archive top level