[Tlhingan-hol] "So what's Klingon for 'Now get your kit off?'"

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> I don't see any reason that "start" is necessary to make it equal
> "undress." To un-wear is to undress. To start un-wearing is to start
> undressing. To finish un-wearing is to finish undressing. {chenHa'} is
> "come apart" without a {-choH} on it.

The difference I see there is that {chen} is already a change of state (from one form (or formlessness) to another), whereas {tuQ} - unlike {tuQmoH} - does not.
If {chen} meant "have form", you would need a -choH.

To compare with {'ey}:

{'ey} = be delicious
{'eyHa'} = be un-delicious
{'eyHa'choH} = become un-delicious

> Anyway, the phrase "get your kit off" doesn't mean to START getting
> undressed, it is a command to make yourself naked.

However, to undress is to stop wearing, or to start un-wearing.

{yItuQHa'!} still strikes me as correct, though; it just focuses on the not wearing, rather than the undressing.

> Why would it be its own root?
>
> tuQ+moH = "cause to wear (some clothes)"
> tuQmoH = "put on (some clothes)"

It's not clear from the gloss itself, but if we assume that {tuQmoHHa'} is not an error, it suggests that {tuQmoH} is its own root word; otherwise, we would expect {tuQHa'moH}.

> Would that mean that after <tuQHa'moH> the person would be naked but
> after <tuQmoHHa'> the person would be missing a *some* piece of cloth

Not necessarily; I would see the difference more as in what the object is.
In one case, you're causing an item (or several) or not be worn.
In the other, you're casuing a person (or several) to not wear.

...although that's also a bit unclear to me, as I still don't quite understand what the object is when you add -moH to a transitive verb.
paq'batlh includes the sentence {SuvwI' DameH puqloDwI' vIghojHa'moH}, suggesting that the object of {ghojmoH} is the one who is made to learn.
However, it also contains {QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH}, suggesting that the object is that which is learned.
It could be that the first sentence is a case of the prefix trick. Or that Klingon, like English ("I taught them." vs. "I taught English."), allows for both options and let people interpret using common sense rather than mechanical rules.

________________________________________
From: David Trimboli [david at trimboli.name]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 22:03
To: tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] "So what's Klingon for 'Now get your kit off?'"

On 5/28/2013 3:47 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>> tuQ = wear
>> tuQHa' = undress (undo-wear)
>> tuQHa'choH = undress, resulting in a change of state (from not
>> undressing to undressing)
>
> I would not translate tuQHa' as "undress", but rather as "unwear",
> suggestion that you've worn something but no longer are.

Hence my gloss, "undo-wear."

> tuqHa'choH = "start unwearing", or "undress"

I don't see any reason that "start" is necessary to make it equal
"undress." To un-wear is to undress. To start un-wearing is to start
undressing. To finish un-wearing is to finish undressing. {chenHa'} is
"come apart" without a {-choH} on it.

Anyway, the phrase "get your kit off" doesn't mean to START getting
undressed, it is a command to make yourself naked.

> We also have the odd case of «tuQmoH», "put on (clothes)" [TKD],
> which appears to be its own root verb, distinct from tuQ+moH.
> «tuQmoHHa'» = "take off" —
> <http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1993-12-holqed-02-4.txt&get=source>

As I said, odd translations in TKD.

--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol