tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:20:11 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: 'Iv qeylIS betleH chenmoHlu'?

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:57:41 -0800 (PST) Neal Schermerhorn 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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."

What you say is completely correct according to the grammar 
section of TKD, but in the "useful phrases" section, we have the 
intransitive example {quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'?} There is no object 
of {ba'}. Technically, you could say {ja'chuqlu'} to mean, "One 
discusses" or more accurately "Some indefinite plural entities 
discuss."
 
> 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.

Well, they can, as noted above, but you are completely correct 
in saying that there is no justification so far for giving 
{ja'chuq} an object. One translation in English would logically 
have one, but it does violate the grammar involving {-chuq}.
 
> 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.

Well, {ja'chuqlu'} is possible with current grammar, but no 
other prefix will work on it and there can be no object. So, you 
are right in the most significant part of your argument and you 
spoke well, given all that is in the grammar section of TKD.

It took me a long time to resolve the intransitive use of 
{-lu'}, but it clearly works, though it is somewhat irregular 
and is not described at all in the grammar section. The 
convention here is to say something like:

We discussed tactics. 

maja'chuqtaHvIS to' wIqel.
 
or more to my liking:

to' wIqelmeH maja'chuq.

> Qermaq

charghwI'

Back to archive top level