tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 09 23:10:20 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

{tuQ} (was Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions)

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' lay'tel SIvten:
> ...The definition is "wear", and further, we are told that
> it's the kind of wear that relates to clothes.

The definition is more complicated than that.  In addition to the  
simple gloss "wear (clothes)", we have several other examples of the  
verb involving the suffixes {-Ha'} and {-moH}.  Those examples are  
what Doq is basing his conclusion on.  With the exception of the odd  
{qoghwIj vItuQmoHHa'pu'} idiom, what he says seems to work fine.

I have a different analysis that takes into account things like the  
"prefix trick" and the {quHDaj qawmoH} example from the {Ha'quj}  
Skybox card.  I think it handles everything that Doq's does, and it  
gives hints as to how to extend the usage to other verbs, but it's  
not nearly as simple as what he presented.

> That can only be transitive,

*Every* verb can be used with a no-object prefix.  There's not really  
such a thing as "only be transitive" in Klingon grammar.   
Transitivity itself isn't usually a relevant concept anyway.  A more  
appropriate distinction is between verbs of "action" and verbs of  
"quality".

> and the object is what one wears, typically clothing.

When the suffix {-moH} is used, the object is not so straightforward.

ja' Doq:
> bImeqchu' SoH je, 'ach mu' <<Hotlh>> yIqelqa'. qatlh "Hotlh (v):
> project, put on screen" qonbe'?

jIQIjlaHbej.  ngeD:  ja'be' Qugh "put him on screen."  ja' "put him  
on." :)

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level