tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 21 07:30:05 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: qep'a' (was Re: On a more humerous note)

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected]) [KLI Member]



FWIW I believe QeS lagh is exactly right in his
understanding of {nga'chuq}.  That is how I use
it, too.

-- ter'eS

--- QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 






Back to archive top level