<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/14/2020 11:36 AM, De'vID wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmNjSGHXb=-VAWUwO5RLcs8G8p_1cfTGCoXM_zFfGH5q0A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> On p.156-157, there
is this sentence:<br>
> {quv HIja'chuqQo'}<br>
> "Don't speak to me of honor!"<br>
> <br>
> 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."<br>
> <br>
> 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. <br>
> <br>
> 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'}. <br>
> <br>
> There's something strange that's going on with this
sentence that I think requires clarification.<br>
<br>
>>> 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. <br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I can confirm this sentence is an error and will be changed
in the 2nd edition. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes! While this doesn't answer any questions about <b>-chuq</b>
or <b>ja'chuq,</b> it does effectively remove that pesky sentence
from canon.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>