tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 01 13:03:42 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
transitivity
>First, I am not sure if <ghuH> can be intransitive, as you have used it
here.
>I would be inclined to say it could, but I am not a pabpo'na' (pabpo'Hey
>jIH'a'???). Yes, this is one of those Ongoing List Debates I occassionally
>mention. Second, the <vaj> is a bit extraneous. It is certainly not
>incorrect, but think about this a moment, and I think you will see what I
>mean...
>--HoD trI'Qal
Consider yourself {pabpo'Homna'}.
Intransitivity in Klingon is something that is purely semantic, and such a
distinction is more important in a language which uses suffixes like {-moH}
and {-lu'}. English is actually handicapped because many of its verbs are
both transitive and intransitive. (improve, hurt, sink).
Anyways, the main point of this post is that using an object-less prefix on a
verb that normally takes an object is a good way of indicating an
*indefinite* object. It parallels to the way {-lu'} indicates an indefinite
subject.
Now the Great Ongoing Transitivity Debate:
It stems from such verbs in TKD as {Dub} which is given as "improve". But the
problem with this translation is that "improve" in English is either
transitive (I am improving my skills) or intransitive (My skills are
improving).
Some may just make the excuse of saying, "Well, if English does it that way,
why couldn't Klingon?" The answer is basically, "Because Klingon is not
English," but such an answer is weak, unconvincing, and vague.
I will therefore endeavor to enlighten the lot of you who claim to be in the
dark on this whole issue.
Suppose that {Dub} is intransitive. A simple rendering of "My skills are
improving" comes out {DubtaH laHwIj}. But then to say "I am improving my
skills", one must bring in {-moH}: {laHwIj vIDubmoH}.
Now suppose that {Dub} is transitive. "I am improving my skills" comes out
{laHwIj vIDubtaH}. But to say "My skills are improving", it's {laHwIj
Dublu'taH}.
I hope this clears some people's heads on this issue. Because Klingon even
has the transitizer {-moH} and the intransitizer {-lu'} convinces me that
Klingon verbs cannot go both ways, as they often do in English. Thus, to say
that {Dub}, {DubmoH}, and {Dublu'} all mean the same, merely because they
mean the same in English, grossly deteriorates the usefulness of such
suffixes.
English makes quite an efficient use of these transitive/intransitive pairs.
However, to force such a system on Klingon would hinder the expressiveness of
the language and often cause burdens of ambiguity. It's time to get on the
right path.
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos