tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 30 14:49:48 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {ja'chuq} (was Re: Qapbe' DujwIj)
ja' peHruS:
>bIlugh. mu' {ja'} rar mojaQ {-chuq} 'e' QIj tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom. tlhIngan
>Hol mu'ghom qonpu', 'ej qaSpu' DISmey, 'ej MSNDaq cha' 'ay'mey ghajbogh mu'mey
>QIj MO. mu' {lo'laH} 'oH wa''e' 'e' vIqaw. vIqawHa''a'? mu' {ja'chuq}
>'oH'a' wa''e'? wa' 'oHbe' mu' {ghojmoH}'e' 'e' vIqaw. DaH nuq DaQub?
ghaytan DaqawHa'. Okrand jabbI'ID Daghajbe''a'?
Okrand explained {lo'laH} as a true verb, perhaps related to but
not analyzable as {lo'} + {-laH}. He explained {chenmoH} as the
verb {chen} with the suffix {-moH}. He promised to address the
word {ja'chuq} later, but I never saw a followup. That's okay,
since he had already explained it adequately in TKD itself.
>qatlh mu' {lo'laH}mo' bIjangbe'?
qatlh <lo'laH> vIqelbe'? vIqelbe' <ja'chuq>'e' vIqeltaHmo' jay'.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, I will say this in English.
You used {ja'chuq} with an object-indicating prefix. I pointed
out to you that it was wrong. You suggested that {ja'chuq} was
an indivisible verb like {lo'laH}. I gave you the relevant TKD
information showing that {ja'chuq} is actually {ja'} + {-chuq}.
I did not address {lo'laH} because it is not relevant to the way
you were trying to use {ja'chuq}. Note the subject line of this
set of notes -- it says {ja'chuq}, not {ja'chuq} {lo'laH} je. I
didn't want to lose the focus: my explanation of why your earlier
use of {ja'chuq} was incorrect.
I am still trying not to lose the focus. Am I being clear?
-- ghunchu'wI'