tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 30 21:06:37 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qapbe' DujwIj
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Qapbe' DujwIj
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 00:04:05 EST
In a message dated 3/30/1999 4:55:02 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< In English, you can teach a person AND/OR teach a subject. However,
{ghojmoH} is not the same as "teach." {ghojmoH} means "teach (a person)."
That's not how it's defined for us, but that's what the construction
{ghoj} + {-moH} means. "Cause to learn."
It is quite clear to me that {mughojmoH Qanqor} is the correct way to say
"Krankor teaches me." >>
=====================
You say it is quite clear to you. Meanwhile I say it is quite clear to me
that we cause a subject to learned. The one example TKD p38 gives clearly is
{tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH}. The translation is "I cause a boarding party to be
formed." Although the final paragraph of section 4.2.4 say "Normally, the
best English translation of a verb with {-moH} does not contain the word
'cause,'" I will stick with my reasoning for the time being to explain why I
recognize that the object of {ghojmoH} is the subject or course, not the
person. So far as my logic allows, I cannot "cause a person to be learned" in
the normal sense of things. Maybe Klingon does allow for a follow-up to
{yIHaDqu'} on page 27, such as {nuv vIHaDmoH}.
Finally, you have not provided the source of evidence for your line of
thinking. Recent discussions about analysis of tlhIngan Hol on this listserv
have called for submission of sources and reasonable attitude. I have
absolutely no problem with your attitude; you are giving your slant on the
subject. I thank you. Please provide sources for why you believe the way you
do. Unless you have a convincing argument, I am inclined to believe (but not
stubbornly) that the object of {ghojmoH} is a course, not a student.
peHruS