[tlhIngan Hol] info on {quv HIja'chuqQo'}: it's an error

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Oct 14 12:26:22 PDT 2020

On 10/14/2020 11:36 AM, De'vID wrote:
> The following is a snippet from my discussion with Dr. Okrand about 
> the paq'batlh. The quoted text is me, and the reply is his.
>     > On p.156-157, there is this sentence:
>     > {quv HIja'chuqQo'}
>     > "Don't speak to me of honor!"
>     >
>     > According to TKD 6.2.4 (p.65), "The verb is made up of {ja'}
>     /tell/, {-chuq} /each other/; thus, /confer/ is /tell each
>     other./" However, in TKD 4.2.1 (p.36), it's stated of {-chuq} that
>     "The prefix set indicating 'no object' is used when this suffix is
>     used."
>     >
>     > The imperative prefix {HI-} indicates an object ("me"). But if a
>     prefix indicating "no object" is used, then {quv} has no
>     grammatical role and is just left hanging in the sentence.
>     >
>     > What's going on here? Has {ja'chuq} become a lexicalised verb
>     meaning "discuss", which makes it possible to use with a prefix
>     like {HI-}? Even so, the prefix is apparently incompatible with
>     the object. Is this an example of the "prefix trick", on top of
>     {ja'chuq} being a lexicalised verb? That is, if the sentence had
>     been {quv HIjatlhQo'}, it could've been a shorthand for {jIHvaD
>     quv yIjatlhQo'}.
>     >
>     > There's something strange that's going on with this sentence
>     that I think requires clarification.
>     >>> I think rather than clarification it requires revision. I
>     think the verb {ja'chuq}, glossed in TKD as "discuss, confer," was
>     used inappropriately here. The "discuss" that {ja'chuq} is used
>     for is when there are two (or more) people talking to each other,
>     a back-and-forth conversation. In the sentence in the paq'batlh,
>     no discussion of this kind is going on.  Molor is just telling
>     Kahless not to do something; Kahless doesn't come back with a
>     counterargument. Since there's no discussing (or conferring) going
>     on, {ja'chuq} is the wrong verb.
> I can confirm this sentence is an error and will be changed in the 2nd 
> edition.

Yes! While this doesn't answer any questions about *-chuq* or *ja'chuq,* 
it does effectively remove that pesky sentence from canon.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20201014/232e4b3b/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list