[1840] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Double Predicates and tuQ
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Oct 22 19:54:38 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 19:50:13 EDT
On Oct 22, 11:45am, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Subject: Double Predicates and tuQ
>
> While I was researching possible evidence for the double-predicate
> problem, I came upon an interesting trio of verbs:
>
> tuQ wear (clothes) (v)
> tuQHa'moH undress (v)
> tuQmoH put on (clothes) (v)
...
> I'd have guessed that "to put on clothes"/"to dress oneself in..." would be
> "tuQchoH" (to start wearing), giving "HIpwIj vItuQchoH" for "I put on my
> uniform." But we have "tuQmoH" instead, which would have made sense if
> "tuQ" meant "to be worn", but it doesn't.
tuQ = wear (clothes)
tuQHa'moH = undress (someone)
tuQHa''eghmoH = undress (yourself)
tuQmoH = put (clothes) on (someone else)
tuQ'eghmoH = put (clothes) on (yourself)
This expands the potential meaning of the words. If you expected the
'egh meaning without the 'egh suffix, there would be no way to express
dressing or undressing someone else.
-- charghwI'
