tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 21 01:58:11 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qep'a' (was Re: On a more humerous note)
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qep'a' (was Re: On a more humerous note)
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:57:56 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Shane MiQogh, ja':
>I still don't understand why mu- would be wrong... The subject would
>be they/them and i would be the object. So i don't understand why
>mu- would be wrong...
As I said, I believe {mu-} would be wrong because the apparent suffix
{-chuq} "each other" of the verb {nga'chuq} requires that the verb *not*
take an object prefix. Reread TKD section 4.2.1. There, it says that only
the "no-object" prefixes can generally be used with the verb suffixes
{-'egh} and {-chuq}. {nga'chuq} isn't glossed as "have sex *with*", but
"perform sex".
And even if {-chuq} is actually part of the verb root rather than a type 1
suffix, HolQeD 1:3 explicitly says "always subject", which indicates to me
that the verb probably doesn't take an object under normal circumstances. If
you wanted to say "he/she and I have sex with each other", you would need to
say {manga'chuq ghaH jIH je} or just {manga'chuq}.
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
realestate.com.au: the biggest address in property
http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au