tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 09 01:12:22 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Sa'HutwIj [HI/yI]chop

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

jIghItlhpu':
>Not quite. {Sa'HutwIj HIchop} is grammatical, but it doesn't mean "bite my
>bottom". There would be a direct object {Sa'Hut} and an indirect object
>{jIHvaD}.

jang Paul:
>There is no indirect object in the English "Bite my bottom".

'e' vISovchu'. But there *is* an indirect object in the Klingon phrase 
{Sa'HutwIj HIchop}, which is why {Sa'HutwIj HIchop} does not mean only "bite 
my bottom".

taH:
>"My Bottom" is a direct object of "bite".  /Sa'HutwIj yIchop/, then, would 
>be
>"Bite my bottom".  If you said /jIHvaD Sa'Hut yIchop/ like it appears 
>you're
>implying, it would be "Bite my bottom for me" which is definitely not what
>I suspect is being communicated.

You've misunderstood what I wrote: that's exactly what I tried to say. I'm 
not sure what you thought I meant, but if you reread the thread, you'll see 
that I was trying to explain why {Sa'HutwIj HIchop} (and thus {jIHvaD 
Sa'HutwIj yIchop}) does *not* mean "bite my bottom".

The prefix trick tells us that {Sa'HutwIj HIchop} equals {jIHvaD Sa'HutwIj 
yIchop}.
Common sense tells us that {jIHvaD Sa'HutwIj yIchop} does not equal 
{Sa'HutwIj yIchop}.
Therefore, {Sa'HutwIj HIchop} does not equal {Sa'HutwIj yIchop} either. Both 
sentences are grammatical, but their meanings are different.

DaH qechmeywIj Dayaj'a'?

Savan,

QeS lagh


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' qan je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 60,000 dream jobs! Click here:   
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail

Back to archive top level