tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 16 06:50:33 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: wa' waQ
- From: "Stauffer, Tad E (staufte7)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: wa' waQ
- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:48:20 -0400
jIjatlh:
> > {Sum} is a verb meaning "be near". For example, {Sum yIHmey} "The
> > tribbles are near" So {Sum} doesn't work for "nearly, almost". Instead,
>
> > there's the adverbial {tlhoS} ("nearly, not quite, almost, virtually"),
> which
> > appears in the KGT words list. So your second sentence would be:
> > {tlhoS qaStaHvIS jav jaj, "SPiRaL"Daq juppu' vISuch.} "For nearly 6
> > days, I visited my friends at SPiRaL."
>
jatlh nejwI':
> This is not quite what I was trying to say, which was "For 6 days I will
> be
> visiting my friends nearby at SPiRaL." I incorrectly assumed {Sum} was a
> locational adverb like {naDev} and {pa'}. I suppose I might have written
> this
> better as 3 sentences: {wa' waQ "Atlanta" vengDaq jIjaH. Sum "SPiRaL".
> qaStaHvIS jav jaj "SPiRaL"Daq juppu' vISuch.}.
>
Writing it as these 3 separate sentences is fine. Since {Sum} is a stative
verb (describing a state or condition), you can also use it as an adjective:
{"SPiRaL" Sum} "The nearby SPiRaL"
When using a type-5 noun suffix, such as {-Daq}, the suffix goes on the verb
rather than the noun:
{"SPiRaL" SumDaq} "At the nearby SPiRaL"
So you could still say it as one sentence:
{qaStaHvIS jav jaj, "SPiRaL" SumDaq juppu' vISuch} "For 6 days, I will visit
my friends at nearby SPiRaL."
> Although I understand that my misuse of {Sum} may have been misleading
> here, I would have thought that {wa' waQ} would have cast most of the
> paragraph as future; I have noticed that {qaStaHvIS} seems to be most
> often interpreted as implying past tense (in other posts than these), but
> I
> don't understand why as the verb/phrase has aspect but not tense (which
> is supplied by context). Is this a misunderstanding on my part?
>
No, you're fine; it's my fault. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
When I went to translate your sentence, I was looking at the sentences
individually, so I wasn't keeping track of the tense.
> > The sentence {pab vIghojmoH} is a bit of a problem. You want to say "I
> > teach them grammar", but "them" and "grammar" can't both be the
> > object of {ghojmoH} ("teach"). On page 7 of HolQeD Volume 9 Number
> > 1, there are some suggestions on how to reword this kind of sentence.
> > One way would be to split it into two sentences: {naDev vIghojmoH}
> > "I teach them here" or literally, "I make them learn here" {"Laadan"
> Hol
> > pab lughoj} "They learn the Laadan language's grammar"
>
> I don't yet own a copy of "HolQed" v.9#1 as it is not yet available from
> KLI
> and my subscription began with v.9#2.
>
> Part of my confusion here arose from having read someone's insistance
> that {ghojmoH} means not just "cause to learn" (which is how I initially
> interpreted it) but also to "teach". I can say "I teach Terran languages"
> in
> English, but not {tera'ngan Holmey vIghojmoH); since TKD lists {-moH} as
> meaning "cause to" rather than "cause", this makes sense. The
> insistance that {ghojmoH} means "teach" lead me to re-interpret {-moH} to
> mean "cause", which of course makes no real sense in retrospect since
> that would require something akin to {tera'ngan Holmey lughojlu' 'e'
> vIqaSmoH}.
>
Generally, verbs with suffixes are not special words unto themselves, even
though they're listed in the vocabulary list. For example, {vemmoH} is in
the dictionary as "wake (someone) up". But it's just the verb {vem} ("wake
up"), plus the suffix {-moH} ("cause").
> mIS nejwI'.
>
bImISbe'choHjaj!
- taD