tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 04 17:07:42 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ditransitives
According to [email protected]:
>
> On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 21:40:42 -0400, "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]> said:
> > [I]f I had the ability to add any one, single thing to the Klingon
> > grammar, I would add still the following Type 5 suffix:
>
> > 1. -xxx instrumental "with, by means of". Used to denote the
> > instrument of an action:
> > tajwIjxxx qama' vIHoHta'. (I killed the prisoner with my knife.) [...]
>
> > I have always felt that our attempts to get around this by
> > using two verbs, accompanied by {-meH}, {-taHvIS} or {-bogh} are
> > clumsy and inadequate and the omission of such a suffix is an oversight.
>
> I think that the constructions with {-meH} or {-taHvIS} look clumsy
> because we tend to read too much into the meaning of those suffixes.
> Or maybe it is because we need to interpret them literally? It is
> true that {tajwIj vIlo'taHvIS qama' vIHoHta'} allows for the option
> that I killed the prisoner by kicking him in the throat whilst using
> my knife to peel an apple for my son, but that kind of misunderstanding
> would be very uncommon, so the convention could be that the knife was
> used for the killing unless there is a reason to believe otherwise.
Meanwhile, I see this as a great place for {-meH}. It
establishes the purpose of the use of the knife.
qama' vIHoHmeH taj vIghoS.
Is that really all that awkward? And for those who will gripe
about "I approach my knife," {ghoS} also means "thrust".
> ... If I had
> the ability to add one thing to Klingon, it would be a Type 9 suffix
> with the meaning `by being/doing ...'. Then one could say `By using
> my knife, I killed the prisoner', and one could think of {vI-lo'xYz}
> as an instrumental postposition.
I think it would definitely be useful, though I also think we
can live well without it. The {-meH} construction covers this
for me.
> Such a suffix might be useful for other things too. How do we say
> `The ale is as green as grass'? {SuDmo' HIq tI rur 'oH} somehow
> doesn't sound right.
Hmmm. Yes. I thought it was wrong when I first read it, though
at second glance, I straightened it out in my head. It might be
clearer as {SuDmo' tI rur HIq.} That way you don't get one of
those subject-of-the-first-verb-standing-next-to-the-object-of-
the-second-verb problems. As for wish lists, I'd like a simple
noun for "color".
> ... I wouldn't mind being able to say `By being
> green, the ale resembles grass' or, even better, `The ale is green
> grass-resemblingly', {tI rurxYz SuD HIq}.
That's a weird but interesting idea.
> Okay, enough dreaming. Back to the real world.
On THIS list?
...
> So what about {qagh vISopmoH}? Did I give the qagh something to eat
> (and how can I say what it was?) or did I make someone/something eat
> the qagh (and, again, how can I say who/what that was)? Is there
> such a thing as {Y V X} --> {X-Daq Y V-moH C}, for example?
targh vIje'meH qagh vInob.
I think that {-meH} is a fine, underutilized suffix. It allows
one to establish the purpose of an action, which is exactly the
link you are looking for here.
> > --'Iwvan
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |