tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 15 13:04:32 2011

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: On the interaction between different verb suffixes

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: Felix Malmenbeck (loghaD)

> When you have two or more verb suffixes, there's often more than one
> way to read them: HeghqangmoHlu'pu' is translated on p. 45 of TKD as
> "it made him/her willing to die", but in a message to the old MSN
> group (
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file97-11-30-news.txt&get=source)
> Marc Okrand translated vIchennISmoH as "I need to create it.", so
> apparently, when you have a Type-2 verb suffix and -moH after a verb,
> you can either think of this as the action of causing a certain
> disposition towards a state/action, or as having a certain disposition
> towards causing said state/action; given the right context, we could
> probably just as well interpret HeghqangmoHlu'pu' as "one is willing
> to make him/her die" and vIchennISmoH as "I make it need to form".
>
> So, supposedly, if I were to tell you that wo' vItoy'qanglaH, you
> could supposedly interpret it as "I am able to be willing to serve the
> empire" (-laH acts on -qang, which acts on toy') or "I am willing to
> be able to serve the empire" (-qang acts on -laH, which acts on toy').
> However, I'm wondering: Could one also read this as "I am able and
> willing to serve the empire" (with -qang and -laH acting on toy'
> independently)?

I think the problem with that stems from how people interpret the suffix
{-moH}. Most of the time we seem to imagine it making the verb into a
new verb with a different meaning, but in truth it's really just another
verb suffix with its own meaning.

Take {vIchennISmoH}. For the sake of this example, expand it to {'oH
vIchennISmoH jIH}. The way I used to translate it, and the way most people
still do, was to read it as "I" {jIH} "cause" {-moH} jump to object!
"it" {'oH} go back to the verb suffixes! "to need" {-nIS} "to take form"
{chen}. Your treating {-moH} as a sort of meta-verb, where everything
before it is its object--and the question is whether the other verb
suffixes are part of the original verb or the meta-verb.

I don't think that's the way {-moH} works. I think it's just a normal
suffix that has a distinct meaning, but which isn't verb-like.

vI-: I do something to it
chen: something takes form
-nIS: someone (I) needs something to happen
-moH: someone (I) causes something to happen

Both of these suffixes apply to the verb, never to each other. The only
suffixes that apply to other suffixes are the rovers {-be'} and {-qu'}.
They also refer to what the *subject* needs and causes, not the object.
"It" doesn't need anything, "I" do.

Syntactically, {jIH} is performing the action, but semantically, {'oH}
is doing the forming.

Thus, {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} means "one was willing to make it die."

Hegh: something dies
-qang: someone (one) is willing to do something
-moH: someone (one) causes something to happen
-lu': one does something
-pu': some action is completed

Whatever your translation, all of these elements of meaning must be
present exactly as shown.

{wo' vItoy'qanglaH}: I can only translate this as "I am willing and able
to serve the empire." If there is any precedent for suffixes like {-laH}
and {-qang} to modify each other, I don't remember it. And even if there
is, we must not jump to the conclusion that any suffix can modify any
other suffix.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

Back to archive top level