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. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name