tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 31 18:22:18 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qapbe' DujwIj
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Qapbe' DujwIj
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:03:17 EST
In a message dated 3/31/1999 11:08:16 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<<
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. >>
=====================
Thank you for taking the time to enter your opinion and logic. One problem:
No one added {-lu'} to {tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH} and make it passive; still the
translation MO gives in TKD is "I cause a boarding party to BE formed."
As to whether the true answer is debatable, I agree with you. I have pointed
out my stance, you and SuStel have pointed out yours.
peHruS