[tlhIngan Hol] chevchuqmoH

[Will Martin]

Okay, this looks like we’re suffering from one of those definitions…

Remember {vIH}? In English, you can move (yourself) or you can move something else. The same word means both to be in motion, or to cause something else to be in motion. Okrand clarified this to say it only means “to be in motion”.

Why was this important? Because if you move something else, you {vIHmoH}. If {vIH} had meant “cause something else to move”, then anything in motion would require {vIH’egh}. We needed to know which meaning it had in order to know which instance required which suffix.

So, consider {chev}. It is a verb that means “to separate”. So, what does that mean in English? It means to cause things to be separate.

This is why this gets complicated.

I’d have just said {tlhInganpu’ romuluSnganpu’ je chev qeylIS}. Some might argue it should be {romuluSnganpu’vo’ tlhInganpu' chev qeylIS.} That probably is better. Either would probably work in conversation. The latter is better if there is the sense that you are separating something that you want from something that you don’t want. You are causing something that you want to be separate from something that you don’t want, like getting metal from ore, or wheat from chaff.

When you add {-chuqmoH}, it just gets complicated, for no apparent reason. You are causing them to cause each other to be separate, instead of just causing them to be separate. Maybe there’s a reason to want to do that, but I suspect you’ll stray from the concept of direct speech, which is apparently a Klingon cultural value. You’re getting a little floral; a little picky and perhaps overly specific. If you are seeking to irritate a Klingon, this might work fine.

I wish Okrand had given us a stative verb for {be separate}. That would have been more versatile, since it could be used adjectivally, but hey, he’s made up a LOT of useful words. I’m thankful enough to not give him a hard time over this one.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Mar 5, 2019, at 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If we say:
> 
> {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
> 
> Then does this mean that "kahless separates the klingons from the romulans" ?
> 
> Or does it mean that:
> 
> "There is a group of klingons and romulans, kahless takes this group,
> and causes each member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan),
> to separate the other member (regardless whether he's a klingon or
> romulan)" ?
> 
> And don't axe me, what "causes each member to separate the other"
> actually means, because I don't know.
> 
> ~ changan qIj
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190305/8b34ad5a/attachment.htm>