tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 24 21:28:37 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
tuQ, tuQmoH, tuQHa'moH...
ja' pagh:
>Also, <tuQ> is a rather strange word...
Here's my take on the whole {tuQ/Ha'/moH} thing.
TKD pages 110 and 111 give us these:
tuQ . . . wear (clothes) (v)
tuQHa'moH . . . undress (v)
tuQmoH . . . put on (clothes) (v)
{tuQ} is straightforward. The subject is obviously the person doing the
wearing, and the clothing is explicitly identified as the object. There
is a bit of confusion with {tuQmoH}, however. At first glance, "put on"
seems to be nearly synonymous with "wear", even though one of them has a
{-moH} and the other doesn't. But if we take the {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH}
example from Skybox S20 as a guide to its usage, I think it actually
makes a lot of sense.
The {-moH} would be expected to turn "wear" into "cause to wear". So it
makes sense to consider "put on" to be referring to putting clothes *on
someone else*. The object is still identified as the clothing, acting
very much like {qawmoH} does in S20.
{ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} "It reminds his heritage for him"
or "It reminds him of his heritage."
{puqvaD wep tuQmoH} "He puts on a jacket for the child"
or "He puts a jacket on the child."
With these meanings in mind, {tuQHa'moH} seems to mean causing someone
else to take off clothes, or "undress *another person*".
These three words used to trouble me enough that I tended to ignore them,
but as soon as I understood how the S20 {Ha'quj} sentence was being used,
everything about {tuQ} fell into place. At least in *my* analysis. :-)
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh