tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 19 13:49:14 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: 'Iv qeylIS betleH chenmoHlu'?

ghItlh A.A SuStel je:

>>> ... <ja'chuqlu'> vIlaD ... jIyajbe'.
>> In TKD {ja'chuq} = "to discuss": "It is the geologists' business that
>this
>>strange idea is discussed".
>
>Hmmmm . . . Daj!

Dajqu' 'ej moHqu'.<ja'chuq> is a compound of <ja'> "tell" and <-chuq> "one
another". <-chuq> always has a plural subject and it makes the verb
reflexive in such a way that the object is the rest of the members of the
plural subject. Thus it never takes an object in the prefix. It always has a
'no-object' prefix. "We 'discuss'" is <maja'chuq> and "We discuss it" has to
be <'oHvaD maja'chuq>.

Putting <-lu'> on a verb makes it take a prefix where subject-object
information becomes object-3rd person singular. "We are told" is
<wIja'lu'> - a/k/a "Someone/Something tells us."

You can't have <wI-> on <-chuq>, and you can't have <mu-> on <-lu'>. Since
<-chuq> requires a no-object prefix and <-lu'> requires a 3rd-person object
prefix, the two suffixes cannot be legally combined.

This argument, of course, is invalid if it can be shown that
verb-plus-suffix(es) entries in TDK and KGT are unique words, not simply
examples of usage. <lo'laH> is an abbheration, aside from which I 'feel'
that the latter is true. I have a post on the MSN BBS for MO which has yet
to be answered on this question. If, as I suspect, these "compound" verbs
are simply examples of usage, then <*ja'chuqlu'> is impossible.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level