tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 29 10:52:44 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: verbs + -moH?
ghel tulwI':
>>> >> quv'eghmoH quvmoHbe'lu',
>>>>
>>>> doesn't this have to be "quvmoH'egh"? :)
jang DloraH:
>>>-'egh is a type 1, -moH is a type 4.
Voragh:
>>Funny he should ask. Okrand discussed this very verb on st.klingon (11/97):
>>
>> Maltz reports having heard both {quv'eghmoH} "he/she honors him/herself",
>> which follows the expected order (verb-Type 1-Type 4: {quv} "be honored",
>> {-'egh} "oneself", {-moH} "cause") as well as the weird {quvmoH'egh}
>> "he/she honors him/herself", in which the Type 1 suffix {-'egh} "oneself"
>> follows the Type 4 suffix {-moH} "cause", an impossible formation unless
>> the speaker is considering the verb to be {quvmoH} "honor" and not {quv}
>> "be honored". [....]
tulwI':
>thank you, Voragh. i really thought of "quvmoH" as one entity, that would
>have to be followed by "-'egh". i thought this way because "quv'egh"
>wouldn't have sence, as "quv" isn't transitive.
Because they are separate entries in the TKD and KGT glossaries, others
have thought the same thing. They are not separate verbs, but rather verb
+ suffix. When adding another suffix, they must appear in the correct
order. Okrand only listed them separately to make the words easier to look
up for non-specialist Star Trek fans (the primary audience for TKD after all).
Here's Okrand's entire post, which explains this in more detail:
***************************************************************************
From: Marc Okrand
Newsgroups: startrek.klingon
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998
Subject: Re: For Dr Okrand
Marc Paige wrote ...
> Is the word <chenmoH> a verb on its own or is it a compound of the verb
> <chen> plus the type 4 suffix <-moH>. I have recently used this in a
> sentence that stated:
> not Qaghvetlh vIchenmoHqa'
> I have been told that this should be
> not Qaghvetlh vIchenqa'moH
> Please help me on this.
The short answer is: {chenmoH} "form, make, create" is the verb {chen}
"build up, take form" plus the Type 4 suffix {-moH} "cause." To say "make
again," the Type 3 suffix {-qa'} "do again" should come before the Type 4
suffix. Thus, you should say {vIchenqa'moH} "I make [it] again" ({vI-}
"I [do something to] he/she/it/them").
But, of course, there's a longer answer. Actually, this came up in the
old MSN forum. Here's what I wrote then (and the question I was
responding to).
[PS -- I'll leave for another time any discussion about using use the noun
{Qagh} "error" and the verb {chenmoH} "form, make, create" to say {Qagh
chenmoH} "make a mistake."]
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Okrand
Newsgroups: msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand
Date: November 30, 1997
Subject: Re: chenmoH, ja'chuq, etc.
Neal wrote...
>Are entries in the dictionaries which are verbs with an attached suffix,
>such as <chenmoH>=create (v) and <ja'chuq>=discuss (v), words in themselves?
>Or are they merely examples of usage, as I suspect? (With the exception of
><lo'laH>.)
>
>In other words, do we say <*vIchenmoHnIS> or <vIchennISmoH> for "I need to
>create it"? Can we say <ja'chuqlu'> and if so, what does it mean?
>(Considering that <-chuq> and <-lu'> have contradictory prefix requirements,
>it seems unlikely if <ja'chuq> is merely <ja'> plus <-chuq>.)
This is one of those answers that starts off being simple and then gets
hairy.
For the most part, entries in The Klingon Dictionary (and also in the
addendum in Klingon For the Galactic Traveler) that consist of verb +
suffix are indeed just that, verb + suffix. For example, one entry in the
Dictionary is pujmoH "weaken." This is really puj "be weak" and the
suffix -moH "cause" (thus "weaken" is "cause to be weak"). Since -moH is
a Type 4 suffix, if a suffix of Type 1, 2, or 3 is to be used (such as
-chuq "each other" [Type 1] or -nIS "need" [Type 2]), it would precede the
Type 4 -moH; for example, pujchuqmoH "they weaken each other" or pujnISmoH
"he/she needs to weaken [somebody]."
It is, of course, possible to add the suffix -moH to lots of verbs; not all
of the verb + -moH combinations are listed in the Dictionary as distinct
entries. The ones that are listed are there as much as a matter of
convenience for the user as anything else. For example, there is an entry
for "commit suicide" just in case anyone wants to look that word up; but the
Klingon equivalent is simply HoH'egh, literally "kill oneself" (HoH "kill"
plus Type 1 verb suffix -'egh "oneself"). The absence of a verb + -moH
entry in the Dictionary lists does not mean that that particular formation
cannot be made.
The same goes for the negative suffixes -Ha' and -be' which, along with
-moH, are the most common verb suffixes found in the Dictionary lists
(except for -wI' "one who is/does," but that doesn't enter into any of
this since it's always last in a string of verb suffixes). Since the
negative suffixes are Rovers, they follow different rules. (Well,
actually, since -Ha' always occurs right after the verb and can never be
preceded by suffixes anyway, it can be excluded from this discussion.) The
Rover -be' comes right after whatever it is negating. Both Qochbe'nIS
"he/she/they need to not disagree" (that is, "he/she/they need to agree")
and QochnISbe' "he/she/they do not need to disagree" are acceptable
Klingon formations. The fact that the Dictionary lists Qochbe' "agree"
(that is, literally, "not disagree") does not mean that no suffix may
precede the -be'. It's in there so that someone can easily look up how to
say "agree."
So far so good, I think.
A problem comes in because some of these forms (that is, some of these
verb + suffix combinations) are so common, they seem to, in the minds of
some Klingons anyway, act as if they were simply verb and not verb +
suffix at all. This seems to happen only when the suffix in question is
-moH "cause." Maltz reports having heard both quv'eghmoH "he/she honors
him/herself," which follows the expected order (verb-Type 1-Type 4: quv
"be honored," -'egh "oneself," -moH "cause") as well as the weird
quvmoH'egh "he/she honors him/herself," in which the Type 1 suffix -'egh
"oneself" follows the Type 4 suffix -moH "cause," an impossible formation
unless the speaker is considering the verb to be quvmoH "honor" and not
quv "be honored." Speakers who do this seem to be aware that they are
breaking the rules, so they are doing it for rhetorical effect. (It has
the same sort of feeling, perhaps, as if someone were to say in English
"Don't cellular phone me this afternoon" or "I've been postnasal dripping
all morning" or "It's lightninging and thundering outside" or, to follow
the Klingon example, "He/she self-honors.") If this sort of thing happens
a lot, maybe, in time, the language will undergo some sort of reformation;
maybe -moH will become a Rover. Or quvmoH and similar forms will become
simple (though two-syllable) verbs. But neither is the case yet, and
while some speakers of Klingon may treat them as such, the wisest course
is to leave such things to the poets and keep -moH in its Type 4 position.
On the other hand, you're right about lo'laH "be valuable." It is a simple
verb in its own right (though it's an unusual two-syllable one), not the
verb lo' "use" plus Type 5 suffix -laH "can." It is likely that there is
some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it
is just that -- historical.
Thus, finally and at long last, to answer your first specific question, say
vIchennISmoH for "I need to create it."
I'll try to answer your second question, about ja'chuq, in a separate
posting.
***************************************************************************
You'll notice that Okrand, as usual, never categorically says that
something is impossible because that would paint himself into a corner - or
"lock the door behind him" to follow the Klingon idiom. He almost always
provides himself an out - or, rather, an escape route - should he need one
in the future.
And before you ask, Okrand never did answer the question about {ja'chuq} AFAIK.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons