tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 13 11:35:28 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC++ : Some Questions on {jatlh}, {ghom}, etc.
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC++ : Some Questions on {jatlh}, {ghom}, etc.
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:35:21 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Steven Boozer" at Aug 13, 98 08:36:09 am
According to Steven Boozer:
>
> : Dawut Duy'a' <[email protected]> wrote:
> :> While composing an email communiqu, I rendered {maghomqa'} for
> :> "we meet again" and as a result several questions have been conjured.
> :> In the spirit of {qajatlh} "I speak to you/I speak with you", would it
> :> be acceptible to say, {qaghomqa'} for "I meet you again" or {choghomqa'}
> :> for "you meet me again"; or should these be fully expanded to {maghomchuqqa'
> :> maH} "we meet/encounter each other again" and so on?
As seen below (to get back to the original point), you don't
have to be using the indirect object trick on {ghom}. It takes
those being met as a direct object. You can also use it
intransitively without needing {-chuq}.
> : Okrand has used {ghom} both transitively and intransitively, so
> : apparently, it doesn't need {-chuq}, though that would not be
> : necessarily wrong to use it. In other words, all of the
> : following would be correct:
> : maghomqa'.
> : choghomqa'.
> : qaghomqa'.
> : maghomchuqqa'.
> : While I don't have the quotes with me, the references I have are:
> : S15, HolQeD 4.3, TKW p184, TKD p170. I fully expect voragh won't
> : be far behind me...
>
> Here's what I have for the verb {ghom} (what's that HolQeD 4.3 ref?):
You listed it below. HolQeD 4.3 has S15 in it.
> : > We've seen {qajatlh} in "canon" for "I speak to you/I speak with you".
> : > The Postal Course includes {qaghItlh} for "I write to you".
> :
> : That probably should not be there. It's a stretch, since
> : {ghItlh} is not the best word for "write" in the sense of
> : "correspond" and when I see {qaghItlh}, I have an image of
> : someone tatooing someone.
Is someone who works on the Postal Course noticing this?
> : charghwI'
>
> jImon. For "write" in the non-physical sense, consider {Qum} "communicate".
> Okrand has used it just once, in a post to SuStel on the old MSN Expert
> Forum BBS (11/96):
>
> naDev bIQumqa' 'e' vItul.
>
> Whether {Qum} can take an object - ?{qaQum} "I communicate with you" - is
> unknown.
If so, it likely is using the same indirect object shorthand
trick as qajatlh.
> --
> Voragh "Grammatici certant et adhuc sub judice
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons lis est." Horace (Ars Poetica)
charghwI'