tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 11 08:25:14 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: Mu'mey chu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: Mu'mey chu'
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:23:38 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:11:29 -0400 "Stauffer, Tad E (staufte7)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> voragh wrote:
>
> > > : tlhoy - overly, to an excessive degree, excessively, too much
> > > : (adv) Note that this modifies the VERB and not any NOUN of a
> > > : sentence. It refers to an action that is excessive and not that
> > > : the action involves too many or too much of a noun. See {'Iq}.
> > >
> > > Now this one is confusing. How is {tlhoy} different from the emphatic
> > > suffix {-qu'}, which Okrand has occasionally used in the sense of "too
> > much"?
> >
> >
> charghwI' responded:
>
> > Apparently, he has never really used it to mean "too much". We
> > read that into {tujqu'choH QuQ}, translated as "The engines are
> > overheating," but apparently that was an interpretation of
> > simply saying, "The engines are becoming very hot." One supposes
> > that a Klingon engineer would not bother saying this unless it
> > was a signficant development.
> >
> > If he ever HAS used {-qu'} to mean "too much", then that was
> > apparently no' Hol. Any time you want to mean "too much", use
> > {tlhoy}.
> >
> >
> When I look at {-qu'}, I think of it as similar to a verb-counterpart of
> {-'e'} -- it emphasizes that word. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the
> verb is done a lot or to a large degree. For example, if I read {HoD'e'
> vIlegh}, I think "I saw the *captain*, not someone else". Similarly, I would
> think of {HoD vIleghqu'} to mean "I *saw* the captain, (but I didn't talk to
> him or anything else)". It doesn't mean that I saw him a lot; I might have
> only glimpsed him. But to me, when it follows the verb, {-qu'} emphasizes
> that verb instead of another verb.
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest a link
between what {'e'} does to nouns and what {-qu'} does to verbs
or verb suffixes. It is an interesting thought, though I'm not
sure you aren't placing too much emphasis on an idea that is
slightly off target. In {tujqu'choH QuQ}, I doubt seriously that
the engineer means, "The engines are becoming hot, as opposed to
cold or noisy or some other verb. Yes, they are definitely hot
and only hot."
> The way I would interpret {tujqu'choH QuQ} would be something like "The
> engine(s) are becoming *hot* (as opposed to becoming cold or powerful)"; it
> wouldn't necessarily mean "The engine(s) are very hot".
bIQaghlaw'.
> I don't think that the "too much" or "very" meaning of {-qu'} is quite
> right. Although on page 49, TKD says "The rover {-qu'} (emphatic) may follow
> verbs functioning adjectivally. In this usage, it is usually translated
> _very_."
> To say "the very big ship" or "the enormous ship", I might have preferred
> *{Duj tInchu'}, except that {-chu'} cannot be used on a verb which is used
> adjectivally. So {Duj tInqu'} is translated as "the very big ship",
> although I might also think of it as "the *big* ship (as opposed to the
> medium-sized ship or the small ship)".
chuch pujDaq bIQam.
> I think this is also one reason why the description of colors in KGT seems
> strange to me. On page 82 of KGT, Okrand translates {Doqqu'} and {SuDqu'} as
> "very Doq" and "very SuD". I would translate {Doqqu'} as "*Doq*, not
> blue/green/yellow, white, or black". It seems that especially when used
> adjectivally, a verb with {-qu'} is used to also hold the meaning of
> {-chu'}, possibly because {-chu'} cannot be used on a verb used
> adjectivally.
chaq mIwlIj DaqelnISqa'. If you find yourself repeatly thinking
that Okrand is misusing a suffix, you might begin to entertain
the idea that perhaps YOU are misusing the suffix.
> -taD
charghwI' 'utlh