I was going to save this for after the 2nd edition of {paq'batlh} was released (which I hope is soon), but since this exact topic came up in another thread, I'll post it here now. Dr. Okrand and I were discussing a particular section of text (p. 163 lines 7-9 in the 1st edition), which he'd wanted to revise. He'd asked me to send him all the information pertinent to how the vocabulary had been used previously, and as {tuQmoH} appeared on line 8, this led to a rather involved conversation about its grammar. I'd sent him a long message with the relevant information (the square brackets indicate sources which I sent to him but which I'm not attaching to the mailing list, but you can easily look them up). His response is interspersed with my text, so it's not quite an interview (in that all of my words were written temporally before any of his responses). 


De'vID:
(p. 163 line 8): {may'luchlIj nIv yItuQmoH} "Put on your finest armor". (Kahless is speaking to Molor, challenging him to a fight.) The question is, how does {tuQmoH} "put on (clothes)" work grammatically? Is its meaning just {tuQ} + {-moH}, or does it have a meaning slightly different from the combination of its apparent components?

{tuQ} is "wear (clothes)", so presumably one can say {DaS tuQ matlh} "Maltz wears boots". We have the model sentence {mIv je DaS tuQ ra'wI'} "The commander is in full dress uniform" (KGT p.107), which uses the idiom {mIv je DaS} which (unusually) places the conjunction between the nouns. But as far as the subject and object of {tuQ} are concerned, there is no controversy about that.

MO:
>>> So far, so good.

De'vID:
We also have the expression {qogh tuQmoHHa'} which is supposed to literally mean "take off one's belt", but which has the slang meaning "to not hear", based on the homophony of {qogh} "ear" and "belt". This appeared in HolQeD 2:4 [in an article on p. 17-18].

The grammar of this sentence is a bit strange, which is okay because it's slang. The suffix {-Ha'} appears to be in the wrong place. In fact, TKD lists {tuQHa'moH} as a word meaning "undress".

MO:
>>> Right. The unusual suffix placement occurs in this idiom only (which the short explanation of the phrase in HolQeD doesn’t point out).  If one said {qogh tuQHa’moH}, that could only refer to removing a belt, nothing about not hearing.

De'vID:
However, you've also written that sometimes, some verbs with {-moH} are treated as though they're part of the verb root, and {-Ha'} is added after it [link to msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand post of 1997-11-30].

MO:
>>> That’s true, but I don’t think that’s relevant here. The idiom is just weird.

De'vID:
So perhaps both {tuQHa'moH} and {tuQmoHHa'} are correct and used interchangeably, or perhaps they have evolved to mean slightly different things.

MO:
>>> They’re both “correct,” but they can’t be used interchangeably. One is used only for the idiom.  Grammatically,  however, they work the same way (see below).

De'vID:
But another issue with that expression is what the object(s) of {tuQmoH}/{tuQHa'moH}/{tuQmoHHa'} would normally be. If {DaS tuQ matlh} is "Maltz wears boots'', then {matlhvaD DaS vItuQmoH} would seem to mean "I put boots on Maltz'', "I cause Maltz to wear boots''. This is based on the pattern of {[wo'rIv]vaD quHDaj qawmoH [Ha'quj]} "[the sash] reminds [Worf] of his heritage", literally "[the sash] causes [Worf] to remember his heritage", from SkyBox card 20 (HolQeD 5:2) [p. 14].

MO:
>>> So it would seem. But that’s because the glosses in TKD aren’t really as clear as they might be (as I’m sure you’ve noticed).

{tuQ} does mean “wear,” so that’s fine. Your {DaS tuQ matlh} example is good.

{tuQmoH} does mean “put on” (referring to clothes), but a better English translation would be “don” to indicate that it refers only to putting on one’s own clothes (the person getting dressed is the subject).  So {DaS tuQmoH matlh} is “Maltz dons boots” or “Maltz puts on boots” (meaning Maltz puts boot on Maltz). (I don’t know that I’ve ever heard English “don” being used for footwear, but that’s neither here nor there right now — we’re talking about Klingon, not English.)

Similarly {tuQHa’moH}, which TKD glosses as “undress,” might be more revealingly translated as “doff,” that is, remove one’s own clothes.
(The point here isn’t whether “don” and “doff” are terrific translations of {tuQmoH} and {tuQHa’moH} respectively; it’s just to give a better idea of what these words mean and how they’re used.)

(Also — I know we’re talking about {tuQ} and friends here, but {qawmoH} in the example of Worf and his sash, though glossed in TKD as “remind,” might be better interpreted as something along the lines of “bring to mind.”)

De'vID:
The examples and grammar seem to agree that the (direct) object is the clothing. The HolQeD 2:4 article has the example sentence, {qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'} "I've taken off my belt; your secret is safe with me." Based on the translation, the speaker is the person doing the wearing/un-wearing. But how is this indicated grammatically by the sentence? It's not clear who is the wearer/un-wearer (the subject of {tuQ}, if you will). And this isn't helped by the English definitions of the relevant verbs (which would result in "I cause the belt to un-wear" or "I undress the belt").

MO:
>>> True. But using the English translations “don” and “doff,” I think, does clarify. The subject of the verb is the one who’s donning and doffing.

De'vID:
Is it implied? Or, to put it another way, can {qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'} mean "I have taken off his/her belt", and only context (or maybe a suffix {-wIj} or {-Daj}) disambiguates? Can I say, {matlhvaD qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'} "I've taken off Maltz's belt”?

MO:
>>> No. {tuQmoH} and {tuQHa’moH} aren’t used for putting clothes on or taking them off someone else.  Your sentence could perhaps mean something like “For Maltz’s benefit, I’ve removed the belt (from me).”

De'vID:
That brings us to the line from the paq'batlh. Is the wearer (yourself, Molor) implied? Could the sentence have meant (given another context), "Put your finest armor on someone else" (i.e., {ghaHvaD may'luchlIj nIv yItuQmoH})? And would one say, {SoHvaD may'luchlIj nIv yItuQmoH} to make the meaning explicit?

MO:
>>> Given all of the above, the sentence in the paq’batlh can mean only that “you” (in this case, Molor) is the one who should  put on (or don) the armor.

De'vID:
I don't really think the sentence as written is wrong, just possibly ambiguous without context, and context makes clear that the wearer of the armour is to be Molor himself. But it was pointed out to me as a possible issue to address.

The original reason this line came up was actually in a discussion about Duolingo. There, the example sentence (composed by members of KLI) was, {paSloghlIj DatuQnISmoH}, which is supposed to mean "You need to put on your socks". The question arose as to whether this always means "on oneself", or whether it can potentially mean "You need to put on your socks on someone else". [link to the discussion on the Duolingo forum]

MO:
>>> Yes. It always means “on oneself.”

De'vID:
Does {tuQHa'moH} mean "undress" when there is no object?
Would {yItuQHa'moH} mean "Undress (yourself)!”?

MO:
>>> Yes, though without further clarification it’s silent about how much clothing is being removed.

De'vID:
That is, is "undress" just there in TKD for ease of looking up the word, rather than define a verb with a narrower meaning than the parts suggest?

MO:
>>> As noted above, the TKD glosses aren’t always as clear as they might be.

Now, after all of that, you will certainly ask: How do you say, “I put boots on Maltz”?

You use the verb {jom}. This was previously glossed only as “install” (as in “install a device,” not “install somebody into office”), but it can also mean “put on” in the sense of putting clothing on someone else. When used in this way, the object is the article of clothing; the person ending up wearing the clothes is where the clothes go (where they’re “installed,” so to speak), indicated by {-Daq}.

You can leave the object out if context makes things clear. Otherwise, there has to be something, even if it’s just {Sut}.

It’s grammatically correct to say {jIHDaq DaS vIjom}, which would mean something like “I put boots on me.”  I suppose there could be a context where something like this might be better (for emphasis or something) than {DaS vItuQmoH}.  

{DaS vIjom}, without an overt locative expression, is odd, but it might be understood in context.

Don’t read too much into the word “device.”  The non-clothing object of {jom} could be a pipe under a sink. It doesn’t have to be something that mechanically or electronically “does” something. It’s just a thing that fits properly into or onto something (which is one way {jom} differs from {lan} “place”).

(end of message)

--
De'vID