tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 28 09:14:16 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: proper use of meQ - burn
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: proper use of meQ - burn
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 97 16:13:55 UT
[email protected] on behalf of HetaQ wrote:
> To say: "The book burns."
> meQ paq
>
> Or must it be something like:
> paq lumeQ
You've hit upon the problem of transitivity and vagueness in TKD's
definitions. These problems plague us.
The following is from TKW:
meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH.
Only a fool fights in a burning house.
>From this, we see that {meQ} has the subject being the thing which burns.
Therefore, it's {meQ paq}, not {paq lumeQ}.
> Or are both correct?
Probably not. "They burn the book" would be {paq lumeQmoH}.
> If [meQ paq] is correct for "The book burns." can [meQ] be used
> adjectivally as in:
> [paq meQ] "the burning book" ? It sure does express a state.
You've also hit upon the only example I know of that uses a stative but not
"qualitative" verb adjectivally. The example is in CK:
Ha'DIbaHmey meQ Sop 'e' tIv tera'nganpu'
Terrans enjoy eating burnt animals.
{meQ} is clearly used here adjectivally. This either means that any stative
verb may be used adjectivally (something which I simply don't believe), or
that {meQ} also happens to mean "be burned." (Or that {meQ} is simply an
exception to the rule.)
(By the way, there's more wrong with this sentence which leads me to believe
that it was sloppily constructed. It should be {'e' lutIv tera'nganpu'}.
Therefore, I'm hesitant to give too much importance to this sentence.)
> I'd like to say:
> paq meQ tIqaw
> for "Remember the burning books."
Given the example from CK, I'd say that {paq meQ} describes books with the
quality of being burned. Whereas, if you called it {meQtaHbogh paq}, it would
describe books which are or were in the process of burning (much more vivid to
my mind).
meQtaHbogh paq tIqaw
Remember the burning books.
> Well, you may see where this is going. Our attorneys heard from Viacom.
> They have restated their demands for the destruction of remaining
> inventory of "Secret Fighting Arts".
quvHa''eghmoHchu' taHqeqpu'! Do'Ha' not paqvam vIlaDpu'. qep'a' loSDIchDaq
vIlegh, qar'a'? vIje'laHbe' 'a vIlegh vIneH.
> We've tried doing business with them, tried ignoring them, and then begged
> (I'm ashamed as a Klingon) for licensing. Now it is simply time for WAR!
verengan Ha'DIbaHvam tIHoH!
> mupwI' qeylIS nuqaDvIpjaj jaghmaj jay'
"May our enemies be afraid to challenge us hammer's Kahless." Huh?
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97491.2