tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 08 14:23:20 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: chaQ (verb)
Voragh:
> >> qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'
> >> I've taken off my belt (HQ 2.4)]
lay'tel SIvten:
> >HQ 2 is one of the issues I don't have, so I can't check this, but
> >shouldn't {-Ha'} precede {-moH}?
Normally, yes, but that was the form published in HolQeD. (Isn't
{tuQHa'moH} the form listed in the TKD glossary?) Most likely it's just an
error by Okrand who has previously written:
It is interesting that {-Ha'} always occurs right after
the verb. It is not known why Klingon grammarians insist
on calling it a rover. It was felt best not to argue with
Klingon tradition, however, so {-Ha'} is here classified
as a rover. (TKD 47f)
Maybe {-Ha'} was a free rover in the past and this form is a frozen form
from the past which is always used with the suffixes in this order. There
may be other historical forms that we haven't seen yet.
QeS lagh:
>I also lack this issue, so I can't confirm or deny this example; but in most
>cases, yes. That being said, Maltz has heard {quvmoH'egh} (check out
>Okrand's MSN posting of 30 Nov 1999) - but like most intentional
>ungrammaticality, that sort of thing is usually for emphasis or rhetorical
>effect.
Also possible, since this is a colloquial expression - possibly an
historical one.
lay'tel SIvten:
> >{qogh vItuQHa'moHpu'} means to me "I undressed the belt" (i.e., "I took
> >clothes off the belt"), which is bizarre.
>Remember that with double-predicate causative verbs, if there's only one
>predicate present it can be either the person or thing who is made to do the
>action *or* the person or thing ultimately affected by the action. Either
>can stand as the object. In {qogh vItuQHa'moHpu'}, you can either interpret
>it as is (which makes no semantic sense),
But it is consistent with the {poSmoH} example below: what is opened or
removed is the "natural" object of the verbs, with or without {-Ha'}:
yIvbeHwIj vIpoSmoH.
I opened my blouse.
yIvbeHwIj vItuQmoH.
I put my blouse on.
qoghDaj tuQmoH.
He put his belt on.
qoghDaj tuQHa'moH.
He took his belt off.
Voragh
> >> If you want to refer both to the person and the object, it seems we have
> >> two models:
> >>
> >> yIvbeHlIj neH DapoSmoH vIneH.
> >> The only thing I want you to open is your blouse. (ST5 notes)
> >>
> >> A SAO with {neH} "want".
lay'tel SIvten:
> >Okay, but how then "I will make you open your blouse"? We can't add {-moH}
> >to {poSmoH}, and we don't have a word for "to cause", just the suffix
> {-moH}.
> > ({yIvbeHlIj DapoSmoH; 'e' vIqaSmoH}?)
Instead of the unattested *{qaSmoH} "make (something) happen", use {raD}
"force, compel":
yIvbeHlIj DapoSmoH 'e' vIraD.
I will make you open your blouse.
> >> tuQtaHvIS Hem. ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH.
> >> He wears it proudly as a reminder of his heritage. S20
> >>
> >> This one is a bit trickier. The subject of {qawmoH} is {Ha'quj'e'
> tuQbogh
> >> wo'rIv} "the sash which Worf wears" from a previous sentence in S20. The
> >> literal meaning seems to be something on the line of "for Worf [the sash]
> >> calls to mind his heritage" or "for Worf [the sash] serves as a
> reminder of
> >> his heritage".
>
QeS lagh:
> or assume that there's a sort of
>"silent" {ghaH} in the sentence. Klingon grammar as it stands doesn't allow
>it to be explicit. In ??{qogh ghaH vItuQHa'moHpu'}, either {qogh} or {ghaH}
>ends up isolated, with no syntactic function.
Again, use {raD} along with {-vaD} on the model of S20:
QughvaD qoghDaj tuQHa'moH 'e' vIraD.
I made Kruge take off his belt.
or you could simply say:
[ghaHvaD] Qugh qogh vItuQHa'moH.
I took Kruge's belt off [him].
which is ambiguous. (Was Kruge wearing his belt or was I?). To disambiguate:
ghaHvaD Qugh qogh vItuQHa'moH.
I took Kruge's belt off (him).
This feels clumsy to us, but as Okrand wrote in TKD:
This suffix [{-vaD}] indicates that the noun to which it is
attached is in some way the beneficiary of the action, the
person or thing for whom or for which the activity occurs.
(TKD 28)
While the object of the verb is the recipient of the action,
the indirect object may be considered the beneficiary. In a
Klingon sentence, the indirect object precedes the object
and is suffixed with the Type 5 noun suffix {-vaD} "for,
intended for." (TKD 180)
The belt isn't the "beneficiary" of the action of the verb {tuQ}, the
person is - even with {-moH}. Here are all the other examples of {tuQ}
"wear clothes":
mIv je DaS tuQ ra'wI'
The commander is in full dress uniform.
(i.e. "The commander wears helmet and boot.")
mIv DaS je tuQ ra'wI'
The commander is wearing a helmet and a boot. KGT
qorDu'Daj tuq 'oS Ha'quj'e' tuQbogh wo'rIv.
The sash that Worf wears is a symbol of his family's house. S20
tuQtaHvIS Hem. ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH.
He wears it proudly as a reminder of his heritage. S20
In all the examples we have - including the odd example from HQ 2.4 - the
object of {tuQ} is an article of clothing, not the person wearing
it. Thus, {tuQmoH} is "put on (clothes)" (not "make someone put on
[clothes]") and {tuqHa'moH} is "take off (clothes)" (not "make someone take
off [clothes]").
Using {raD} "force, compel" we can say:
tuQmoH puqDaj 'e' raD SoS.
The mother made her child get dressed.
Ha'qujDaj tuQmoH puqDaj 'e' raD SoS.
The mother made her child put on his sash.
but how do we say "The mother dressed her child" (i.e. herself)? Perhaps
the only way is indirectly with {QaH} "help, aid" or {boQ} "assist":
tuQmoH puqDaj 'e' QaH SoS.
The mother aided/helped her child get dressed.
mIv je DaS tuQmoH ra'wI' 'e' boQ boQDu'.
The aide-de-camp assisted the commander get into (his) full dress uniform.
may'luchDaj tuQmoHmeH ra'wI' boQ boQDu'.
The aide-de-camp assisted the commander get into his battle gear.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons