tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 04 20:21:38 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: lopno' - looking for general comment

ghItlhpu' HovqIj:

>juHDaj Daq vIDellu'.

'ej lughmoHmeH ghItlhpu' Qov:

>jIHvaD juHDaj Daq Dellu'

I agree with Qov based solely on conservative treatment of the language.
When comparing two ways to say the same thing, we must prefer the examples
which are the least controversial. Not that we can't take chances - I do.
But if we are considering correctness, short of an explicit rule we must
simply go with the more conservative approach.

When we say <vay' HInob> we are clearly not saying "Something - Give me." If
I rerally wanted to express that I want to be given (to some unnamed thing
or person) I would write <jIH HInob> to avoid confusion. <nob> is a verb
we've seen using the "prefix trick". <jIHvaD taj yInob> is equivalent to
<taj HInob> by examples of MO himself, so we accept it.

(For new list members, here's the scoop - normal usage of "Subject Verbs an
Object to Beneficiary" is <Beneficiary-vaD (object noun) s-o prefix+verb
(subject noun)>. "Maltz gives chocolate to Torgh" = <torghvaD yuch nob
matlh> "I cut meat for you" = <SoHvaD Ha'DIbaH vIpe' (jIH)> (jIH only if
needed). BUT with a pronoun as beneficiary we can sometimes abbreviate this
thusly - "Maltz gives you a knife" = <taj Dunob matlh> and PERHAPS "I cut
you meat" <*Ha'DIbaH qape'>) (More on this later.)

I am of the opinion we cannot accept the prefix rule as one of ~mark's
hammers with which we can hit every damn nail we see. We really should see
this as an irregular usage, and reserve it for when we have explicit canon.
<nob> is a word this works with, according to MO. It is unlikely, but as I
explained above not impossible, that I want you to give ME. However the
common usage is that I want you to give TO ME. (Being that we have no
explicit canon for <pe'>, I can only say I believe it is not wise to
consider <*Ha'DIbaH qape'> acceptable.)

Now I can ask you to describe (something) to me, but I can also ask you to
describe ME. This is nowhere near as odd as asking you to give ME. <HIDel>
would be easily understood as "Describe me (to someone)", compared to
<HInob> as most likely not "Give me (to someone)" and more likely "Give
(something to) me."  So using the prefix trick on <Del> would be confusing
and less than clear. My opinion is that it is inappropriate here. The verb
<Del> must be treated as regular in this sense because we have no reason to
assume it is irregular.

Qov, and any past or future BG, is correct to take a conservative approach
to correction. No swimming teacher lets you dive off the high board unless
they are sure you will survive the trip. You might be up to it but the board
might be cracked. In this case, we simply cannot determine the safety of the
diving board. No diving till further notice.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level