tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 02 01:00:00 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: transitivity
According to Guido#1:
...
> 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).
{{:)> nIvba' tlhIngan Hol.
> 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.
This is the one point in this post I don't follow. Could you
give us a hint of a reference to some canon? It is a new
thought for me.
> 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).
My natural preference in words like {Dub} is to assume that it
is transitive. I usually look for some evidence that more
explicitly suggests intransitivity, as in the definition of
{vIH} - "move, be in motion". While in English, "move" can be
either transitive or intransitive, "be in motion" is only
intransitive. My read on this is that Okrand wanted the
intransitive meaning, but wanted to list the word where it
would be looked up: "move". I interpret this as an instance of
the kinds of listings described in TKD, page 79.
Krankor holds a different opinion on {vIH} and I respect his
opinion generally. My compromise is that I always use it
intransitively, making it transitive only as {vIHmoH}, though I
try to refrain from complaining when I see others using it
transitively, and I mentally add {-moH} to it and so understand
what the other person was trying to say.
> 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}.
I think this is an excellent explanation, though as I said, I
tend to disagree with the premise here that {Dub} is
intransitive.
> 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}.
Just to twist the brain a little, consider also {Dub'egh
laHwIj} and {Dubchuq laHmeywIj}. The latter might be
appropriate if I believe that my skill at playing the chuS'ugh
improves my skill at resisting torture, while my skill at
resisting torture improves my skill at playing the chuS'ugh,
for example.
> 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
qatlho'
charghwI'