tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 29 17:21:55 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
ja'chuq
ja'pu' charghwI':
>You can't use the prefix {wI-} with the suffix {-chuq}. By all
>indications, {ja'chuq} is not a root verb, despite its entry in
>the dictionary. It is almost certainly {ja'} plus {-chuq}.
ja' ~mark:
>No arguments... But I note that this very question (can we say {?paq
>wIja'chuq} has been on my (at least) list of questions for MO for a *LONG*
>>time (I'm talking 4-5 years). I don't know that there are "indications"
>one way or another, aside from the usual tendency (which I approve) to
>presume that compound-looking words are in fact compounds and not relexed
>roots.
There's something a lot stronger than an "indication" in TKD. At the top
of page 65, a parenthetical comment tells us *exactly* what {ja'chuq} is:
The verb is made up of {ja'} "tell" plus {-chuq} "each other";
thus "confer" is "tell each other".
The answer has been there since before the question was asked.
ja' charghwI':
>It may have been mentioned when he revealed that {lo'laH} was an
>actual, separate word root. It was certainly a golden
>opportunity.
At the end of the note in which Okrand detailed {lo'laH}, he promised
to return to the subject of {ja'chuq} at some other time. I don't think
he ever followed through on that promise. But he didn't have to, since
TKD already explained it for us.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh