tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 04 14:22:42 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tuQaHlaH'a' ?
On Fri, 4 May 2001, David Trimboli wrote:
> From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> > bijatlhvIS batlh DaDel
>
> This works, though don't forget the obligatory /-taH/ whenever you use
> /-vIS/ -- /bIjatlhtaHvIS/.
Ah, definitely need to bone up on my suffix rules this weekend...
> And of course it only works in cases where one "describes" honor. If it was
> "questioned" or "denied" or something else, choose another verb in place of
> /Del/. I definitely prefer /Del/ over /qel/, though, as a matter of style.
True. I think it's a useful example of "out of the box" thinking, though.
> > If you want to get more complex, how about
> >
> > <complicated bit> 'e' DaDel bIjatlhvIS batlh
>
> (What's that /batlh/ doing at the end there?)
Good question. I'm an idiot. :)
> More complex as in something like "You told me about the three pillars of
> honor"? In such a case, the /'e'/ wouldn't be necessary:
>
> batlh wej 'ay'mey DaDel jIHvaD bIjatlhtaHvIS.
I'm thinking more like "Yesterday spoke to me about killing the targ.":
wa'Hu' targh vIHoH 'e' DaDel bIjatlhvIS
(Hmm, wa'Hu' where would wa'Hu' really go? I'm so out of practice)
Where the "about" is not a simple noun, but rather a phrase. Of course,
if the "about" was a noun, the 'e' wouldn't be there.
> > Going out on a limb, how about:
> >
> > wa'hu' batlh wI'ja'chuq
> >
> > "Yesterday we discussed honor" (not sure if it shoudn't be "batlhvaD";
> > does ja'chuq take an object?)
>
> No, it doesn't. /ja'chuq/ is a verb plus a suffix, not a distinct verb.
> For instance, you could never say /ja'chuqHa'/, but you could conceivably
> say /ja'Ha'chuq/ (/-Ha'/ always comes before any other suffixes). Since
> verbs with /-chuq/ don't HAVE objects (the object is the same as the
> subject), they always take a "no object" verb prefix and don't have
> suffixes. That /ja'chuq/ is not a distinct verb has been confirmed by Marc
> Okrand.
My mu'HaqwI' lexicon lists ja'chuq as a verb. As I said, I don't have my
books with me, so I can't double-check.
Is there an adopted rule here about verbs that show up in the dictionary
that "appear" to have a suffix being treated as unique verbs? I thought I
remembered there being some question about that for nouns (something like
whether or not "QongDaqDaq" was correct)?
> It'd be convenient if we could say */quv wIja'chuq/ "We discuss honor," but
> we can't. This is why I suggest /quv'e' maja'chuq/ "On the topic of honor,
> know this: we confer."
>
> wa'Hu' batlh'e' maja'chuq.
Aren't you still putting batlh'e' in the object position? I'd be more
inclined to see ja'chuq as taking an object, the object being the topic of
the discussion.
...Paul (who, oddly enough, is better at grammar than vocabulary. :)
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **