I was wondering whether there is any sense in using the {-chuqmoH}, and if yes, then how is it to be used ? For example, lets say we place the {-chuqmoH} on a be-verb. If we write {pImchuqmoH} then does this mean "they made each other different" ? And could we write {romuluSngan DIpImchuqmoH} for "we made the romulans different to each other" ? On the other hand, if we placed the {-chuqmoH} on a verb which takes an object, then would the following be correct ? {romuluSngan DIleghchuqmoH} for "we made the romulans see each other" ? qunnoq
On 8/29/2017 7:54 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I was wondering whether there is any sense in using the {-chuqmoH}, and if yes, then how is it to be used ?
For example, lets say we place the {-chuqmoH} on a be-verb. If we write {pImchuqmoH} then does this mean "they made each other different" ?
And could we write {romuluSngan DIpImchuqmoH} for "we made the romulans different to each other" ?
On the other hand, if we placed the {-chuqmoH} on a verb which takes an object, then would the following be correct ?
{romuluSngan DIleghchuqmoH} for "we made the romulans see each other" ?
*-chuq* doesn't allow the use of an object, since the plural subject is also the verb's object. *pImchuqmoH* is just fine for /they made each other different./ You can get a clearer feeling for the effect of *-chuq* + *-moH* with a more active verb: *HIvchuqmoH */they cause each other to attack./ But you can't just stick the target of their attacks in the object position, because this is a reflexive verb. You have to use another sentence. For example: *HIvchuqmoH; verengan Duj 'oH DoS'e'*/they cause each other to attack; the target is the Ferengi ship./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Okrand’s use of {-chuqmoH}: pujchuqmoH they weaken each other (st.k 11/1997) Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS Kahless united the tribes of Kronos (PB) {-chuqmoH} presumably parallels {-‘eghmoH}: quv'eghmoH he/she honors him/herself (st.k 11/1997) yItuj'eghmoH Heat yourself! ("Cause yourself to be hot!") KGT yItaD'eghmoH Freeze yourself! ("Cause yourself to be frozen!") KGT muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB) --Voragh From: SuStel On 8/29/2017 7:54 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: I was wondering whether there is any sense in using the {-chuqmoH}, and if yes, then how is it to be used ? For example, lets say we place the {-chuqmoH} on a be-verb. If we write {pImchuqmoH} then does this mean "they made each other different" ? And could we write {romuluSngan DIpImchuqmoH} for "we made the romulans different to each other" ? On the other hand, if we placed the {-chuqmoH} on a verb which takes an object, then would the following be correct ? {romuluSngan DIleghchuqmoH} for "we made the romulans see each other" ? -chuq doesn't allow the use of an object, since the plural subject is also the verb's object. pImchuqmoH is just fine for they made each other different. You can get a clearer feeling for the effect of -chuq + -moH with a more active verb: HIvchuqmoH they cause each other to attack. But you can't just stick the target of their attacks in the object position, because this is a reflexive verb. You have to use another sentence. For example: HIvchuqmoH; verengan Duj 'oH DoS'e' they cause each other to attack; the target is the Ferengi ship. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 8/29/2017 9:33 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS
Kahless united the tribes of Kronos (PB)
This contradicts what I said about *-chuq* and objects, and I'm going to head you off and explain it. There are two ways to interpret *muvchuqmoH:* *[muvchuq]moH */he/ (singular subject)/causes them /(plural object) /to join each other/ and *[muv]chuq[moH] */they/ (plural, reflexive subject)/cause each other to join./ When I responded earlier, I was thinking of the latter interpretation, but both are possible. In the former, the *-moH* applies to a singular subject causing the plural object to do something to each other; in the latter, the *-moH* applies to a plural subject causing each other to do something. Things become a little murky when you're dealing with verbs that don't take objects, because the "doer" of the verb doesn't do something to something else. *romuluSngan pImchuqmoH* would mean /he causes the Romulans to be different each other,/ but /be different each other/ is as meaningless as *romuluSngan vIpIm*/I am different the Romulan./ So what I said is true... when you're dealing with verbs that don't take objects. If the verb does allow an object, then the "doers" of the verb, whether the subject or object, can do the verb to each other. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
So what I said is true... when you're dealing with verbs that don't take objects. If the verb does allow an object, then the "doers" of the verb, whether the subject or object, can do the verb to each other.
Thank you for explaining this; as soon as I read the {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} I was about to ask about it. However, reading the canon sentences, I noted something else which seems a little strange: muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB) If I was to translate the original klingon sentence, then I would write "while he was striking, all of his anger made itself together". But since we have the {tay'}, then shouldn't there be two subjects (at least) which would be/made together ? qunnoq On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:53 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/29/2017 9:33 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS
Kahless united the tribes of Kronos (PB)
This contradicts what I said about -chuq and objects, and I'm going to head you off and explain it.
There are two ways to interpret muvchuqmoH: [muvchuq]moH he (singular subject) causes them (plural object) to join each other and [muv]chuq[moH] they (plural, reflexive subject) cause each other to join. When I responded earlier, I was thinking of the latter interpretation, but both are possible. In the former, the -moH applies to a singular subject causing the plural object to do something to each other; in the latter, the -moH applies to a plural subject causing each other to do something.
Things become a little murky when you're dealing with verbs that don't take objects, because the "doer" of the verb doesn't do something to something else. romuluSngan pImchuqmoH would mean he causes the Romulans to be different each other, but be different each other is as meaningless as romuluSngan vIpIm I am different the Romulan.
So what I said is true... when you're dealing with verbs that don't take objects. If the verb does allow an object, then the "doers" of the verb, whether the subject or object, can do the verb to each other.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/29/2017 10:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
So what I said is true... when you're dealing with verbs that don't take objects. If the verb does allow an object, then the "doers" of the verb, whether the subject or object, can do the verb to each other. Thank you for explaining this; as soon as I read the {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} I was about to ask about it.
However, reading the canon sentences, I noted something else which seems a little strange:
muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB)
If I was to translate the original klingon sentence, then I would write "while he was striking, all of his anger made itself together". But since we have the {tay'}, then shouldn't there be two subjects (at least) which would be/made together ?
Let's remove the extraneous material. *tay' QeH*/the anger is together./ This is apparently a valid meaning of *tay';* it doesn't require multiple subjects that are together. You can think of it as anger consisting of multiple parts, which have been gathered into one. Note that I would never understand *tay' QeH* standing all on its own; it's a metaphor that only makes sense in context. Don't take this example to mean that Klingons consider anger to consist of multiple parts. This is only a metaphor in a poem. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj. However, lets return to the {-chuqmoH}. We have the canon sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS}. As you wrote: "There are two ways to interpret muvchuqmoH: [muvchuq]moH he (singular subject) causes them (plural object) to join each other and [muv]chuq[moH] they (plural, reflexive subject) cause each other to join." So, if I understand correctly what has been explained so far, then the following two sentences are correct: {verengan Duj vIHIvchuqmoH jIH} I caused the ferengi ships to attack each other {HIvchuqmoH verengan Duj} the ferengi ships caused each other to attack each other But if I wrote: {verengan Duj luHIvchuqmoH cha' Duj nov} two alien ships caused each other to attack the ferengi ship {verengan Duj DIHIvchuqmoH maH tlhIH je} We and you caused each other to attack the ferengi ships Then both of these sentences are wrong. Is my understanding correct ? qunnoq On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:24 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/29/2017 10:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
So what I said is true... when you're dealing with verbs that don't take objects. If the verb does allow an object, then the "doers" of the verb, whether the subject or object, can do the verb to each other.
Thank you for explaining this; as soon as I read the {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} I was about to ask about it.
However, reading the canon sentences, I noted something else which seems a little strange:
muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB)
If I was to translate the original klingon sentence, then I would write "while he was striking, all of his anger made itself together". But since we have the {tay'}, then shouldn't there be two subjects (at least) which would be/made together ?
Let's remove the extraneous material. tay' QeH the anger is together. This is apparently a valid meaning of tay'; it doesn't require multiple subjects that are together. You can think of it as anger consisting of multiple parts, which have been gathered into one.
Note that I would never understand tay' QeH standing all on its own; it's a metaphor that only makes sense in context. Don't take this example to mean that Klingons consider anger to consist of multiple parts. This is only a metaphor in a poem.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/29/2017 10:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
However, lets return to the {-chuqmoH}. We have the canon sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS}.
As you wrote: "There are two ways to interpret muvchuqmoH: [muvchuq]moH he (singular subject) causes them (plural object) to join each other and [muv]chuq[moH] they (plural, reflexive subject) cause each other to join."
So, if I understand correctly what has been explained so far, then the following two sentences are correct:
{verengan Duj vIHIvchuqmoH jIH} I caused the ferengi ships to attack each other
{HIvchuqmoH verengan Duj} the ferengi ships caused each other to attack each other
That last one is /the Ferengi ships cause each other to attack/ or /the Ferengi ship causes someone unspecified to attack each other./ In neither case does the subject attack itself.
But if I wrote:
{verengan Duj luHIvchuqmoH cha' Duj nov} two alien ships caused each other to attack the ferengi ship
{verengan Duj DIHIvchuqmoH maH tlhIH je} We and you caused each other to attack the ferengi ships
Then both of these sentences are wrong.
Is my understanding correct ?
Yes. Unless Klingon allows reflexive verbs to also take objects, which there is, I think, slight evidence of. For example, the thinking goes that you can't say *tuqlIj qun wIja'chuq.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
However, reading the canon sentences, I noted something else which seems a little strange:
muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB)
If I was to translate the original klingon sentence, then I would write "while he was striking, all of his anger made itself together". But since we have the {tay'}, then shouldn't there be two subjects (at least) which would be/made together ?
The reflexive suffix {-'egh} does not require a plural subject. Don't confuse it with the reciprocal suffix {-chuq}, which does. If you are confused by a single thing coming together, look at the word "focused" in the translation. -- ghunchu'wI'
jIH:
{HIvchuqmoH verengan Duj} the ferengi ships caused each other to attack each other ghunchu'wI': That last one is the Ferengi ships cause each other to attack or the Ferengi ship causes someone unspecified to attack each other. In neither case does the subject attack itself.
I'm afraid can't understand this; why can't the subject (which in our example is two ships) attack itself ? SuStel:
[muv]chuq[moH] they (plural, reflexive subject) cause each other to join.
And if the subject can't act on itself, then the above actually means "they (plural, reflexive subject) cause each other to join a third party (and not each other)" ? qunnoq On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
However, reading the canon sentences, I noted something else which seems a little strange:
muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB)
If I was to translate the original klingon sentence, then I would write "while he was striking, all of his anger made itself together". But since we have the {tay'}, then shouldn't there be two subjects (at least) which would be/made together ?
The reflexive suffix {-'egh} does not require a plural subject. Don't confuse it with the reciprocal suffix {-chuq}, which does.
If you are confused by a single thing coming together, look at the word "focused" in the translation.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/29/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
jIH:
{HIvchuqmoH verengan Duj} the ferengi ships caused each other to attack each other ghunchu'wI':
I wrote this.
That last one is the Ferengi ships cause each other to attack or the Ferengi ship causes someone unspecified to attack each other. In neither case does the subject attack itself. I'm afraid can't understand this; why can't the subject (which in our example is two ships) attack itself ?
SuStel:
[muv]chuq[moH] they (plural, reflexive subject) cause each other to join. And if the subject can't act on itself, then the above actually means "they (plural, reflexive subject) cause each other to join a third party (and not each other)" ?
Okay, basic grammar lesson. When you use *-chuq,* it means either the subject is plural and is doing something to each other, or the "doer" of the action is plural and is doing something to each other. If the "doer" is not the subject, it's because you're using *-moH* to say that the subject is causing the doers to do the action to each other. The doers, not the causer, act upon each other. If *HIvchuq verengan Duj,* then the Ferengi ships attack each other. They are both subject and doer. If *HIvchuqmoH verengan Duj,* then the Ferengi ships are /causing/ something to happen. Either they are /causing each other to attack/ (there's no implication that they're attacking each other, just that they're attacking /someone/), or they're /causing someone unspecified or general /(there's no implication that it's the Ferengi ships) /to attack each other/. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB) What I get here is: muptaHvIS may mean:- - V:[impact|strike] VS7:continuous VS9:while tay''eghmoH may mean:- - V:be_together VS1:self VS4:cause QeHDaj may mean:- - N:anger NS4:his Hoch may mean:- - N:all "While he was striking, all his anger brought itself together." with nothing directly specifying "one blow".
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
Anthony Appleyard -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel