tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 01 08:13:12 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions

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

I'll wear my hat as BG as I answer these.

--- Aaron Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for your answers to my earlier questions,
> everyone.  They were very
> useful, and now I have a few more.
> 
> wej means "not yet".  Does it have a counterpart
> meaning "still"?  (For
> example, how might I say "I'm still waiting"?)
> 
No adverb for this, but the verb suffix {-taH} gives
the same idea: {jIloStaH} "I'm still waiting."


> Is ghojmoHwI' an acceptable (canonical) word for
> "teacher"?
> 
Yes. It's in TKD.


> We have QaD "dry", chIm "empty" and jen "high".  Are
> there Some acceptable
> (canonical) words for "wet", "full" and "low"?
> 
{yIQ} "be wet"
{'eS} "be low"
I don't recall a word that means exactly "full", but
{naQ} "be complete, whole" might serve sometimes.


> Does teq "take off, remove" prefer specifically to
> clothes? Is it
> substitutable for tuQHa'maH?
>
I don't recall a canon example, but I personally would
not think so.  I would use {teq} for removing a lid
from a bottle, for example, or a nacelle from a
starship.

 
> I don't understand whether tuQmoH and tuQHa'moH are
> transitive or
> intransitive.
>
No body else does either!  My personal opinion is that
{tuQ} and the unattested {tuQHa'} are transitive, and
refer to a person wearing or taking off articles of
clothing, eg. ?{cheSvel vItuQHa'} "I take off my
jacket."  That would make {tuQmoH} and {tuQHa'moH}
mean that the subject is causing _someone else_ to
wear or take off clothing: "I cause him to put on his
coat."  The problem is that we don't really know how
transitive verbs behave when you add {-moH}: If they
have objects, what happens to them?  What happens to
the original subject of the unsuffixed verb, the one
now caused to act by the new subject?  Everyone has
their opinions, and some very heated arguments have
arisen from it.  Most of us just avoid the issue.

Or, {tuQ} and {tuQHa'} could be intransitive and
simply mean "to wear clothes" and "to take off
clothes".  But then we couldn't refer in the same
sentence to what items of clothing are involved. And
the versions with {-moH} would still refer to causing
someone else to be dressed.  The only difference is
that, we do know what happens to intransitive verbs
and {-moH}, so we could accomodate the former subject
and current causee in the phrase: ?{puq vItuQmoH} "I
dress the child/make the child put on clothes."

Also, the concept of "becoming dressed", which "put on
clothes" seems to imply, really would be better
expressed by the suffix {-choH}: ?{jItuQchoH} "I'm
putting on clothes."

The point is that the definitions of these words are
inconsistent with each other, their written
definitions, and what little we know of how {-moH}
works.  


 
> Many thanks, once again.
> aa.
> 

I never saw your original post(s).  Since you are
using the tag KLBC, you seem familiar with the idea of
the Beginner's Grammarian.  I'm supposed to get first
crack at your grammar questions, to avoid confusing
you, but posts that are exclusively about vocabulary
are probably fair game for anyone.

-- ter'eS BG

Back to archive top level