tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 08 09:19:30 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

Doq ([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>
>
>
>






Back to archive top level