tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 01 20:42:55 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected])

• From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
• Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=oVWuGexbSM0CGqcgaqYKsVYGH3g9AkvWd/DtqBsby03bnduFyCBzpGWI6dqEGcVWpnRLAxWe4BQYZ/4CUDZ7kBLbOimxbXlIKYUhEIvbk9AE1eemVdrDpYT4LFdDVKRlRDChUMw4NYDvy4HTcXAmS4Y0JERasw+YCn+F1MQQHyk=;
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

Just to follow up my comments about the vagueness and
inconsistency of {tuQ}, et al.:

--- Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> We don't know since {teq} has never been used in a
> sentence.  {tuQHa'moH} 
> "undress, take off" has been used once:
> 
>    {qogh} "ear", of course is homophonous with
> {qogh}, "belt"... This homophony
>    explains why the Klingon slang expression {qogh
> tuQmoHHa'}, literally 
> "take off
>    one's belt" is used to mean "to not hear", for
> example, {qogh 
> vItuQmoHHa'pu'}
>    "I've taken off my belt; your secret is safe with
> me."             [HQ 2.4]
> 
> Note the "incorrect" order of the suffixes; we would
> expect 
> {tuQHa'moH}.  We're not sure what this means, if
> anything.
> 
> We have a few more examples of {tuQ} "wear
> (clothes)":
> 
>    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
> 

The examples of plain {tuQ} fit well with the idea
that {tuQ} just means "to wear", with direct object
being the thing worn, but {tuQHa'moH} (or
{tuQmoHHa'}!) can only mean "take off (clothing)" if
{tuQHa'} is actually _intransitive_ and means "to not
be worn" (that is, the subject is the item of
clothing!). But that would lead us to expect that
{tuQ} means "to be worn", and that contradicts canon
usage.

Or, maybe {tuQmoHHa'} is a completely different verb
equivalent to {tuQHa'choH}, literally "begin to unwear
(clothes)"?

Using {tuQ} to mean "wear (clothes)" is canonically
safe.  I'd also feel safe using the unattested
{tuQHa'} to mean "to not be wearing (clothes)." 
Regular grammar rules should also allow {tuQchoH} and
{tuQHa'choH} for "to put on/take off (clothes)".  But
the meaning of any version using {-moH} turns out to
be very hard to interpret.

We've all come to accept that Okrand occasionally made
mistakes, and we work around them.  I think this is
one of those times.

-- ter'eS 

• References:
  • Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Lovers package at discount price!
• Next by Date: 0EM Software
• Previous by thread: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level