tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 06 19:10:15 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: KLBC: Qochbe'



I remember the message that ghunchu'wI' was replying to. You should have
quoted the part of the message he was responding to. You had taken {Qoch},
which so far as we know cannot take a direct object, and added {-chuq} to
it. The problem with that, as ghunchu'wI' pointed out, is that {-chuq} uses
the subject as an object, so you can't do this because {Qoch} doesn't take
any kind of direct object at all (so far as we know).

Look at it in English. Would you say, "You and I disagree each other,"? No.
You and I disagree WITH each other. In English, we need a preposition in
order to give "each other" a grammatical role relating to the intransitive
verb "disagree".

Instead, just say {maQoch}. We disagree. You don't need {-chuq}. It not only
adds nothing to the meaning. It screws up the meaning.

charghwI'

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 1:44 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: KLBC: Qochbe'
>
>
> In a message dated 6/27/2000 11:17:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << Your point, taken straight from TKD, is noted.  But did you
> ever consider
>  *why* the type 1 verb suffixex {-chuq} and {-'egh} are
> incompatible with an
>  object?  It's because there is already an effective object on the verb --
>  they indicate that the recipient of the verb's action is the same as the
>  subject.  That's why I'm wary of proposals like {Qochbe'chuq}, since they
>  require that there be an appropriate object for the verb to act upon.
>   >>
>
> We are saying the same thing.  I pointed out that {-chuq} may not take an
> object after you tried to use an object with it.
>
> peHruS



Back to archive top level