[90967] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] paq'batlh: TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE OF SOMETHING
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Mon Nov 28 02:29:46 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:29:31 +1000
In-Reply-To: <COL124-W5761F37C57C6685677F11FF2CD0@phx.gbl>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
jatlhpu' 'ISqu':
> Don't speak to me of honor
> quv HIja'chuqQo'
> (pp 156-157)
jang De'vID, jatlh:
> I think {ja'chuq} is considered a verb on its own (it's been lexicalised),
> and isn't quite the same as {ja'} + {-chuq}.
I agree. I think that's the only way to successfully analyse this sentence.
It isn't without precedent, either (compare {lo'laH}).
Though I do wonder if ??{qechvam'e' maja'chuqchuq} "we talk to each other
about this idea" is potentially possible, or if it just sounds weird to a
Klingon ear.
jang 'ISqu', jatlh:
> So, "I will discuss this idea tomorrow" would be:
> {wa'leS qechvam jIja'chuq} or {wa'leS qechvam vIja'chuq}?
Assuming {ja'chuq} as a legal lexical unit, only the second works for me. I
can't parse {wa'leS qechvam jIja'chuq} in any meaningful way.
taH:
> I don't remember seeing that line at the qep'a' either this or last year.
> I was working with Qanqor and ghunchu'wI', and I think they would have
> commented on it had they seen it. I suppose the same goes for the people
> in the other group (Qov, QeS and pagh).
Indeedy. Though I only saw the portions from this year's qep'a', I don't
remember spotting it and I'm sure it would have stood out like a sore thumb
to at least one if not all of us.
QeS 'utlh
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
