tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 26 08:01:52 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Our old friend {tuQmoH}
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Our old friend {tuQmoH}
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 97 09:57:38 EST
SuStel's musing on objects yesterday started me thinking about the
odd-seeming definitions of {tuQ}, {tuQHa'moH}, and {tuQmoH} in TKD.
I think I've figured out what's going on, and if I'm right, Okrand
is again revealed to be a master at creating consistency out of
apparent chaos.
{tuQ} "wear (clothes)"
This is straightforward. The object is the thing which is worn.
{Sut vItuQ} "I wear clothing."
{tuQHa'moH} "undress"
This works okay if an intransitive use of "wear" is assumed and if
the person being undressed is its object. (The seemingly similar
English verb "disrobe" would probably be {tuQHa'} in Klingon.)
{puqloDwI' vItuQHa'moH} "I undress my son." It meshes with the
longtime interpretation of {-moH}, which runs into difficulties
when it's used on a verb with a transitive meaning.
{tuQmoH} "put on (clothes)"
This is the odd one. The way {-moH} has been treated, this looks
like it really should have the person wearing the clothes as the
object. The English definition is confusing as well; it seems as
though it might be the same as "wear (clothes)". But having both
{tuQ} and {tuQmoH} for the same meaning is not likely, so there's
probably a better interpretation. I think it's intended to be
"dress someone with (clothes)." The "someone else" meaning isn't
readily apparent from the English phrase, but it fits well.
Here's where it gets good. We now know how {-moH} works on transitive
verbs; the object of the root verb remains its object, and the object
of the causation becomes the beneficiary and is marked with {-vaD} (if
there is no previous object, the verb prefix can be usurped to point
to the beneficiary). This "new" information explains the apparent
oddness of {tuQmoH} -- it would normally be used to talk about putting
clothes on someone else, so its object would still be the clothing.
The recently revealed mechanism behind the way we see {-moH} being
used not only resolves our double-object question but also takes care
of a longstanding hard-to-explain piece of vocabulary. I'm impressed.
So "I wear a necklace" is {ghIgh vItuQ}, and "I put a necklace on my
wife" would be {be'nalwI'vaD ghIgh vItuQmoH}. By the "shorthand" use
of verb prefixes, "I undress my beloved" is {bangwI' vItuQHa'moH}, but
it would likely still make sense to say {bangwI'vaD paH vItuQHa'moH}
instead of {bangwI' paH vIteq}, perhaps in order to imply something
like "I take my beloved's gown back off (after putting it on her)."
[Or maybe {teq} applies only to taking things off oneself.
chaq bangwI' paH vIteq, SutDaj vItuQ jIH 'e' parmo' ghaH. :-)]
-- ghunchu'wI'