Re: lugh

[Steven Boozer <sboozer@midway.uchicago.edu>]

Quvar wrote:
>In on of my latest mails (I deleted it) I wrote
>
>   {QaghHommeyHeylIjmo' qalughmoH}
>
>Now I just saw that the object of {lughmoH} is "something", so I can

I don't have {lughmoH} as a separate entry from Okrand in my notes.  Where 
did you see that defined?

>{mu'tlheghlIj vIlughmoH} "I cause your sentence to be correct" but
>not {SoH qalughmoH} "I cause you to be correct"
>
>Any evidence for that?

I know of know evidence either way, though we have long been using 
{lughmoH} for "correct (something)" on the list.  (Grammarians need to be 
able to say "I've corrected your sentences.")

All the examples I know of are for the stem {lugh} "be correct, be right":

   bIlugh
   You're right. TKD

   bIlughbe'
   You're wrong. TKD

   reH lugh charghwI'
   The victor is always right. TKW

   lugh; Sor rur
   correct as a tree  KGT

Until we see something to the contrary, I think you're safe in saying 
{qalughmoH} "I correct you", {cholughmoH 'e' DangIl'a'?} "Do you dare 
correct me?", etc.


-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons