If we say: {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS} Then does this mean that "kahless separates the klingons from the romulans" ? Or does it mean that: "There is a group of klingons and romulans, kahless takes this group, and causes each member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan), to separate the other member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan)" ? And don't axe me, what "causes each member to separate the other" actually means, because I don't know. ~ changan qIj
On 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If we say:
{tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
Then does this mean that "kahless separates the klingons from the romulans" ?
Or does it mean that:
"There is a group of klingons and romulans, kahless takes this group, and causes each member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan), to separate the other member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan)" ?
And don't axe me, what "causes each member to separate the other" actually means, because I don't know.
I don't think the sentence is meaningful. *-chuq* means the subject is plural and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work for the object. *tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je chev qeylIS*/ Kahless separates the Klingons and the Romulans./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mar 5, 2019, at 08:56, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: If we say:
{tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
I don't think the sentence is meaningful. -chuq means the subject is plural and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work for the object.
But the {-moH} is important here. If the object of a {-moH}ed verb can be the subject of the action being {moH}ed, I think it could be meaningful in the same way {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} is. {qeylIS} is the singular subject of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuqmey} are the plural object of {muvchuqmoH} which makes them into the plural subject of {muvchuq}.
tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je chev qeylIS Kahless separates the Klingons and the Romulans.
That’s obviously a more sensible way to say the first meaning, but I still think the question is a valid one.
On 3/5/2019 10:11 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Mar 5, 2019, at 09:03, Daniel Dadap<daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
I still think the question is a valid one. Maybe it should be rephrased to: “What does {chevchuq tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je} mean?” I don’t have a good intuition to what it might.
We have *chev* in a canonical sentence: *'uSDaj chop, chev!* /Chew his arm off! /(clipped). The second sentence is presumabbly short for either *'oH yIchev*/separate it!/ or *bIH tIchev*/separate them!,/ in which case the subject of *chev* is not the thing separated but the cause of the separation; the object gets separated. *chevchuq tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu'* apparently means /The Klingons and the Romulans separate each other./ That is, the Klingons and the Romulans both work to make the Klingons and the Romulans move away from each other. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 3/5/2019 10:23 AM, SuStel wrote:
We have *chev* in a canonical sentence: *'uSDaj chop, chev!* /Chew his arm off! /(clipped). The second sentence is presumabbly short for either *'oH yIchev*/separate it!/ or *bIH tIchev*/separate them!,/ in which case the subject of *chev* is not the thing separated but the cause of the separation; the object gets separated.
Not sure how I got that; *'uSDaj chop, chev* obviously means /Bite his leg off!/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 3/5/2019 10:03 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Mar 5, 2019, at 08:56, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If we say:
{tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
I don't think the sentence is meaningful. *-chuq* means the subject is plural and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work for the object.
But the {-moH} is important here. If the object of a {-moH}ed verb can be the subject of the action being {moH}ed, I think it could be meaningful in the same way {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} is. {qeylIS} is the singular subject of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuqmey} are the plural object of {muvchuqmoH} which makes them into the plural subject of {muvchuq}.
Here we go again. In mayqel's proposed sentence, *tlhInganpu' *and *romuluSnganpu'* are not the subjects of anything. *qeylIS* is the only subject anywhere. *tlhInganpu'* and *romuluSnganpu'* might be considered as entities that perform *chevchuq,* but the verb isn't *chevchuq,* it's *chevchuqmoH.* The suffix *-chuq* doesn't mean whoever is performing an action performs it on each other; it means whoever is the subject does the verb on each other. In this sentence, the subject is not performing the action; he is causing the action to be performed. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mar 5, 2019, at 09:14, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I think it could be meaningful in the same way {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} is. {qeylIS} is the singular subject of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuqmey} are the plural object of {muvchuqmoH} which makes them into the plural subject of {muvchuq}. Here we go again. In mayqel's proposed sentence, tlhInganpu' and romuluSnganpu' are not the subjects of anything. qeylIS is the only subject anywhere. tlhInganpu' and romuluSnganpu' might be considered as entities that perform chevchuq, but the verb isn't chevchuq, it's chevchuqmoH.
But how is this different from the {muvchuqmoH} example I cited above? {qeylIS} is the only subject in that sentence as well, and clearly he can’t {-chuq} all on his own in that sentence, either.
But there’s this line from the paq’batlh” Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS Kahless united the tribes of Kronos (PB) The only other example of {-chuqmoH} I know of is {pujchuqmoH} “they weaken each other": (st.klingon 11/1997): Since {-moH} is a Type 4 suffix, if a suffix of Type 1, 2, or 3 is to be used (such as {-chuq} “each other” [Type 1] or {-nIS} “need” [Type 2]), it would precede the Type 4 {-moH}; for example, {pujchuqmoH} “they weaken each other” or {pujnISmoH} “he/she needs to weaken [somebody]”. -- Voragh From: SuStel On 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: If we say: {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS} Then does this mean that "kahless separates the klingons from the romulans" ? Or does it mean that: "There is a group of klingons and romulans, kahless takes this group, and causes each member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan), to separate the other member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan)" ? And don't axe me, what "causes each member to separate the other" actually means, because I don't know. I don't think the sentence is meaningful. -chuq means the subject is plural and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work for the object. tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je chev qeylIS Kahless separates the Klingons and the Romulans. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 3/5/2019 10:19 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
But there’s this line from the paq’batlh”
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS Kahless united the tribes of Kronos (PB)
A good supporting example. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 15:35, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If we say:
{tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
I assume you're missing a {je}, as otherwise I read this as "the Klingons' Romulans" (whatever that means).
Then does this mean that "kahless separates the klingons from the romulans" ?
Or does it mean that:
"There is a group of klingons and romulans, kahless takes this group, and causes each member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan), to separate the other member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan)" ?
And don't axe me, what "causes each member to separate the other" actually means, because I don't know.
What you're asking really has nothing to do with {-chuqmoH}, but with {chev}. The only hint we have of how {chev} works is {'uSDaj chop, chev!} It seems that the object of {chev} is the thing being separated ({'uS}), and the subject is doing the separating (the {targh} or whatever is being commanded). That is, {'uS chev targh} would mean "the targ separates the leg (from something unspecified)". {chevchuq tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je} would mean "the Klingons and Romulans separate each other (from something unspecified)" {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je chuvchuqmoH qeylIS} would mean "Kahless causes the Klingons and Romulans to separate each other (from something unspecified)" The problem here is that we don't know how to specify the thing which the leg is (or the Klingons and Romulans are) being separated from. My guess would be it's marked with {-vo'}. I think the grammar is clear when illustrated with a verb other than {chev}: {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je muvchuqmoH qeylIS} "Kahless causes the Klingons and Romulans to join each other" {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je chopchuqmoH qeylIS} "Kahless causes the Klingons and Romulans to bite each other" -- De'vID
Okay, this looks like we’re suffering from one of those definitions… Remember {vIH}? In English, you can move (yourself) or you can move something else. The same word means both to be in motion, or to cause something else to be in motion. Okrand clarified this to say it only means “to be in motion”. Why was this important? Because if you move something else, you {vIHmoH}. If {vIH} had meant “cause something else to move”, then anything in motion would require {vIH’egh}. We needed to know which meaning it had in order to know which instance required which suffix. So, consider {chev}. It is a verb that means “to separate”. So, what does that mean in English? It means to cause things to be separate. This is why this gets complicated. I’d have just said {tlhInganpu’ romuluSnganpu’ je chev qeylIS}. Some might argue it should be {romuluSnganpu’vo’ tlhInganpu' chev qeylIS.} That probably is better. Either would probably work in conversation. The latter is better if there is the sense that you are separating something that you want from something that you don’t want. You are causing something that you want to be separate from something that you don’t want, like getting metal from ore, or wheat from chaff. When you add {-chuqmoH}, it just gets complicated, for no apparent reason. You are causing them to cause each other to be separate, instead of just causing them to be separate. Maybe there’s a reason to want to do that, but I suspect you’ll stray from the concept of direct speech, which is apparently a Klingon cultural value. You’re getting a little floral; a little picky and perhaps overly specific. If you are seeking to irritate a Klingon, this might work fine. I wish Okrand had given us a stative verb for {be separate}. That would have been more versatile, since it could be used adjectivally, but hey, he’s made up a LOT of useful words. I’m thankful enough to not give him a hard time over this one. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 5, 2019, at 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If we say:
{tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
Then does this mean that "kahless separates the klingons from the romulans" ?
Or does it mean that:
"There is a group of klingons and romulans, kahless takes this group, and causes each member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan), to separate the other member (regardless whether he's a klingon or romulan)" ?
And don't axe me, what "causes each member to separate the other" actually means, because I don't know.
~ changan qIj _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (7)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin