[Tlhingan-hol] paq'batlh: TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE OF SOMETHING

[Qov]

At 10:06 27/11/2011, lab 'ISqu:

>jIH:
>
> >    Don't speak to me of honor
> >    quv HIja'chuqQo'
> >    (pp 156-157)
>
>De'vID:
>
> >I think {ja'chuq} is considered a verb on its own (it's been lexicalised),

I've never been quite comfortable with that one as fully lexicalized, 
despite my desire to use it to say "Tor and Kruge discussed the warp 
drive," I always write something like {ja'chuq tor Qugh je. pIvghor 
luqel}.  I always use it as though it were simply ja' + -chuq but I 
think I am accepting enough of people interpreting that differently 
that I might accept some other ways without comment.

> >and isn't quite the same as {ja'} + {-chuq}.  So I'd parse this as a
> >condensed version (through the "prefix trick") of {jIHvaD quv yIja'chuqQo'}
> >"don't discuss honor to (for) me".
>
>So, "I will discuss this idea tomorrow" would be:
>{wa'leS qechvam jIja'chuq} or {wa'leS qechvam vIja'chuq}?

Yehhh, I don't like that. I would have paused.

>jIchIDnIS: jImIS. pabchugh mu'tlhegh {quv HIja'chuqQo'}, pabDaj vIyajbe'.

I would have bepped at that one because neither discuss nor confer 
works there: both English glosses imply a two-way intereraction, as 
does the -chuq even if it is fossilized, whereas context there 
implies more of a SoQ.

>I don't remember seeing that line at the qep'a' either this or last year.
>I was working with Qanqor and ghunchu'wI', and I think they would 
>have commented on
>it had they seen it. I suppose the same goes for the people in the 
>other group
>(Qov, QeS and pagh).

I think it would have depended on how hungry I was at that point, 'e' 
vIchIDnIS. It was cool to see my name in the paq'batlh. Klingon street cred?

I have also been thinking of English words lately, to match Klingon 
words that don't mean what they seem they out to, like nubwI' and 
maybe ja'chuq. Things like refuse, and rebut and undulate. I'm trying 
to remember them to remind myself that language needn't make sense. :-)

- Qov