tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 26 23:59:06 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Qochbe'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Qochbe'
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:58:43 EDT
In a message dated 6/23/2000 3:02:22 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< Using {-chuq} gives exactly the potential problem that we're trying to
avoid.
In order for a type 1 verb suffix to make sense, the verb must be able to act
on an object. If {Qochbe'} "agree" doesn't make sense with an object,
*{Qochbe'chuq} "agree each other" doesn't make sense either.
At least {HoD vIQoch} has a teeny bit of precedent with things like the
"prefix trick", though I don't think the specific third-person usage on a
verb with no natural object is seen in any of the examples we know to be
correct. Extending the "trick" further yet to include reflexive suffixes on
non-object-taking verbs is unwarranted, in my opinion. And it's totally
unnecessary! {maQochbe' HoD jIH je} "the Captain and I agree" works perfectly
without a {-chuq}.
-- ghunchu'wI'
>>
As much as I hope that the verb {Qoch} (and virtually any other Klingon verb)
is capable of taking a Direct Object, my comment here is about {-chuq}. TKD
tells us that verbs with a Type 1 suffix never take an object and the
no-object prefixes must be employed.
peHruS