tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 08 09:19:30 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:18:04 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=gSqF6S5MHDCV1yD1CYaTiPtHE0xYvskNruAJVd8C7TLfJ+EGzlZIybL81DJXuahr; h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
It's interesting to see how people can interpret the glosses
sometimes. Here's how I see it:
jIQongtaHvIS, jItuQbe'. jIvemDI' jItuQ'eghmoH. DaH jItuQ. jIQongpa'
jItuQHa''eghmoH.
bIrDI' muD Dotlh 'ej HurDaq jIHtaHDI', cheSvel'e' jItuQmeH
jItuQ'eghmoH. qoD vIghoSta'DI' chISvelwIj'e' jItuQHa'meH jItuQHa''egh.
Why do I interpret it this way? Well, look at the definition of
{Hotlh}: "project, put on (screen)". Do you think "screen" is an
appropriate direct object? I don't.
So, compare that to the definition of {tuQmoH}: "put on (clothes)".
If I were creating these definitions, I'd use the parenthetical words
to differentiate between the two kinds of "put on", which are quite
different from one another. I would not intend to imply either
"clothes" or "screen" to be direct objects.
The definition for {tuQHa'moH} adds weight to this idea: "undress".
What would be the direct object of that? I undress myself. I undress
my wife. I don't undress my shirt.
Similarly, the definition for {tuQ}: "wear (clothes)" might simply
have the parenthetical to differentiate this verb from all the other
meanings of the word "wear", like {QopmoH}: "wear out". There's
nothing really compelling about choosing "clothes" as direct object
in this definition, and it conflicts with the definitions of the
related forms of {tuQ} he gives us.
Given that, I see {tuQ} and {tuQHa'} as intransitive, and the direct
objects of {tuQmoH} and {tuQHa'moH} as the people putting on or
taking off clothes, and if I want to limit "clothes" to any
particular item of clothing, I'd use {-'e'} to mark it as the topic
of the sentence, setting the scope of the implied "clothing".
Doq
On Jun 1, 2007, at 1:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/1/2007 10:42:30 AM Central Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
> Given these definitions from TKD,
> tuQ wear (clothes) (v)
> tuQHa'moH undress (v) [[p.111]]
> tuQmoH put on (clothes) (v)
>
> it is clear to me that all three are transitive, with object of
> {tuQ} being
> the clothing and the object of the other two being ambiguous,
> since one can
> paraphrase them as "cause (someone) to wear/not wear (something)",
> and only one
> of the two slots can be filled at a time. One work-around is to
> use both
> {tuQ} and {tuQmoH}:
>
> yIvbeH tuQmeH, puq vItuQmoH. = I dressed the child so that he wears
> a tunic.
> yIvbeH tuQ puq vItuQmoHmo'. = The child is wearing a tunic because
> I dressed
> him.
>
> lay'tel SIvten </HTML>
>
>
>