tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 31 09:48:37 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qapbe' DujwIj
According to [email protected]:
>
> 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 difference here is that {chen} is inherantly intransitive
and {ghoj} is potentially transitive. I cause a boarding party
to take form or build up. The loose translation of that is that
I cause the boarding party to be formed.
Meanwhile, you've added a passive voice to your translation of
{ghojmoH} that has no justification. The word is {ghojmoH}, not
{ghojlu'moH}. You've translated {ghojmoH} "cause to learn" as
if it were {ghojlu'moH} "cause to be learned". See?
> 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.
If the word were {ghojlu'moH} you would be right. Meanwhile,
{ghoj} doesn't mean "be learned". It means "learn". Your logic
is flawed.
> Maybe Klingon does allow for a follow-up to
> {yIHaDqu'} on page 27, such as {nuv vIHaDmoH}.
{nuv vIHaDmoH} and {nuv vIghojmoH} both work. Neither study nor
learn are intransitive like {chen}.
> 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.
The object of {ghoj} is a course, not a student. The object of
{ghojmoH} is debatable. You definitely have no basis for the
confidence you present.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh