[88936] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: RE: Compensating
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Wed Jul 6 15:31:34 2011
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:26:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711BD86F5@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Examples of {maja'chuq} from Power Klingon:
maja'chuqjaj?
Can we talk? (PK)
'uQ wISoppu'DI' maja'chuq.
We will talk after dinner. (PK)
I think your TKD quote is an example of a prefix-less general "purpose noun":
ja'chuqmeH rojHom
truce for (two sides) to discuss/confer with each other.
Perhaps these sorts of truces are so common in Klingon warfare that they have a special name.
If it were a specific, one-time occasion, you would need to conjugate the verb:
nuja'meH rojHom neH jaghla'
The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to speak to us (tell us)
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
> -----Original Message-----
> From: > Of Felix Malmenbeck
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:42 PM
>
> Andre:
> > Don't you need to add a 2nd person prefix to your last example? I know -meH
> > phrases can live without, but considering the -'egh there, I'd add it. After
> > all, the batleth isn't aggrandizing itself.
>
> A solid point. To me, it feels like it shouldn't be necessary, since the subject of a
> purpose noun is usuallly third-person even if the one using it isn't (although there
> are exceptions, such as jIpaSqu'mo' narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb [...]
>
> I think the best example is this sentence from TKD:
> ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla' -
> The enemy commander wishes a truce to confer.
> Here, it strikes me as though the people who should confer (ja'chuq) are in fact
> *all of us* (maH), so if the prefixes have to match, it should be maja'chuqmeH
> rojHom neH jaghla'.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: André Müller [esperantist@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 19:21
>
> Don't you need to add a 2nd person prefix to your last example? I know -meH
> phrases can live without, but considering the -'egh there, I'd add it. After
> all, the batleth isn't aggrandizing itself.
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2011 1:04 AM, "Felix Malmenbeck" <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
>> One thing I like about the latter alternative is that one can interpret
>> the -meH here as modifying either the sentence or the object, so either he
>> demands a large ship because he wanted to be honored, or he demands a
>> self-aggrandization ship which is large. A subtle difference, but one which
>> may be fun to play with.
>> Actually, I think I'm gonna start using quv'eghmoHmeH X as a derogatory
>> term.
>> toH quv'eghmoHmeH betleH DaSuqta''a'?
>> [So, you gotten a self-aggrandizing bat'leth?]
>>
>> ________________________________________
