[tlhIngan Hol] prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq}

Will Martin willmartin2 at mac.com
Mon Jul 6 07:04:13 PDT 2020


Great analysis. Great answer.

I thought I had an idea about the exception, but on second thought, it doesn’t work...

{quv HIja’chuq}

There are exceptions, and then there are EXCEPTIONS, and this one is an EXCEPTION.

Okay, on THIRD thought, it makes sense because it’s a command. There is no imperative prefix for the first person subject, no object, so it’s impossible to follow the rule about {-chuq} here. The only way to say “we/us” as an imperative (which always has the second person subject), if you mean singular you and singular me, is to use {HI-}.

So, the sentence translates as an imperative direct quote:

“Honor.” Don’t tell me that/Don’t discuss that with me.

So, yes, it breaks the rule, but there’s no way to say this without breaking the rule. Maybe {ja’chuq} is a fossilized root verb, but it doesn’t have to be in order to explain why this is so exceptional.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Jul 6, 2020, at 9:26 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> I'm not going to try to solve all this for you, but I will point out a couple of things.
> 
> 
> On 7/6/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> According to the above, when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used there is a
>> subject, but how is it possible that there isn't an object as well ?
>> In the {-'egh} case isn't the subject the object as well ? And in the
>> {-chuq} case isn't the other party the object ?
> The text says the no-object prefix must be used with the reflexive suffixes. It doesn't say anything about whether there can be an object. One might reasonably conclude that requiring a no-object prefix also implies no object, but it doesn't actually say that.
> 
> 
> 
>> Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
> Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes, I don't see any problem with it. I have recently speculated that the requirement to use no-object prefixes may not be about restricting which prefixes may be used with reflexive suffixes but about telling the reader which prefixes typically make sense with them.
> 
> "Okay, I want to say We see ourselves. See is legh, reflexive is -'egh, and we is maH. What's the right prefix? Lemme look at the chart... Hey, there's no we–us prefix listed! What do I do? Oh, it says here to use the no-object prefix with reflexive suffixes."
> 
> 
>> So, why couldn't we use the prefix trick with the {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
> Mostly because of the rule that says they only allow no-object prefixes. But we have one canon violation of that rule, in paq'batlh: quv HIja'chuq Don't speak to me of honor! Some people question the strength of this as an example, though, because ja'chuq appears in the dictionary as a lexicalized word, so this may be an example of a root+prefix that has fossilized into its own root.
> 
> I suggest avoiding playing tricks with the reflexive verb's prefixes, simply because it's so unclear whether it's allowed or sensible.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> 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/20200706/43176ed9/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list