[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: SIjwI'

[SuStel]

On 3/6/2016 9:36 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
> jIH:
>> nepwI' SoH ! majach ! ..'ej SIjwI' 'uchpu' Sogh.
>> you liar ! we shouted ! ..and the lieutenant grasped the knife.
> SuStel:
>> Hmm. I'm not sure the {-pu'} is correct in this case. The lieutenant
>> didn't hold and complete holding the knife > at this time, did he? Perhaps
>> {'uchchoH}?
>
> ..or even maybe {'uchta'} ; the lieutenant set out to grasp the knife
> and succeeded in doing so. I'm not sure though.. the whole aspect
> grammar continues to confuse me. let alone that I have associated the
> {-choH} with cases in which <one is becoming something>. i.e <becoming
> lucky, quiet etc>. Can we say <one "became" to hold the knife ?>.

I think you're reading the "grasp" part of the definition of {'uch} as 
"take hold." Grasping is also something that one can do continuously, 
and I think that's the meaning intended. Once you put your fingers 
around an object, you begin to {'uch} it; you haven't finished {'uch}ing it.

You COULD say {'uchchoHpu'}, which would mean either "begin to complete 
holding" or "complete beginning to hold." I don't think this is 
necessary. Although TKD does not name it as such, {-choH} is also a form 
of aspect. Aspect tells how the verb behaves over time; {-choH} tells us 
that the verb starts and then keeps going. No need, therefore, for a 
further perfective aspect in this case.

> jIH:
>> nuv, yIjot'eghchoH ! wIjatlh.. tlhIb neH vutma'. meqmo' DaHoHnISbe'.
>> calm down man ! we told him.. our cook is only incompetent. you don't
>> need to kill him for this reason.
> SuStel:
>> "Calm down!" would be {yIjot'eghmoH}.
>> {jatlh} takes a "speech event" as its object, not a person. You can't
>> use the prefix trick in this case, because that only works for first- and
>> second-person objects. Say instead, {ghaHvaD majatlh} "we told him."
>> "For this reason" is, of course, {meqvammo'}.
>
> oh yes, you're right ! both the <calm down> and the <for this reason>,
> are just another two additional careless mistakes of mine..
> And I'm very happy to read your comments on the prefix trick. When we
> had talked about the prefix trick some time way back, I remember
> someone had written that <it only works for first- and second-person
> objects>, but at that time I hadn't quite understood that, so I went
> on failing to "digest" this valuable information. Luckily, now that I
> read your comment, I understand how it is supposed to work. (or at
> least I think I do !).
> However, I need to confess that i cannot understand why we can't use
> the prefix trick, to say the <we told him>. Is there a grammar reason,
> or is it just an arbitrary rule ?

Consider the confusion if you said {SoQ vIjatlh} and expected someone to 
know that the {vI-} referred to an elided {ghaH} to whom you spoke. 
There's no way to get that from the sentence. If the prefix agrees with 
the direct object, there's no way to make it DISAGREE with the direct 
object so that you know it agrees with an invisible indirect object instead.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name