tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 29 10:05:55 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Transitive and Intransitive

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:33:55 -0700
>From: Robert Darke <[email protected]>

>~mark, qaH,

>> way English enjoys making the same verb do double-duty as transitive and
>> intransitive.

>Okay, sometimes (just sometimes) I think that I know what people mean when
>they say "transitive" from the context of the conversation but I think I
>could do with an explanation.

>Linguistics was not one of my skool subjects :-)

>If this strays too far off topic for "tlhIngan-Hol@.." then feel free to
>mail me direct but I think a short explain would help those of us without
>huge dictionaries to hand ;-)

Ooooh, I'm really torn as to whether or not this qualifies as "on-topic."
But I think I'll lean towards posting it, since Rob probably isn't the only
person who has trouble keeping these straight, and they are important in
discussing Klingon (for all the Krankor believes Klingon doesn't truly
distinguish between them in general, the concepts are still important to
know when talking about Klingon and the -moH suffix).

And all you "true" linguists out there, don't bite my head off for
simplifications, OK?

Verbs come in two flavors: transitive and intransitive.  All verbs take
subjects.  The subject of the verb is the thing which is doing whatever the
verb is talking about.  In an intransitive verb, that's really the only
thing that's required: someone to do it.  So "Qong" is intransitive in
Klingon (OK, Krankor, if it's transitive then we don't know what its object
is): jIQong/I sleep, Qong HoD/the captain sleeps, etc.  That's it.  No
other entity is involved in the sleeping business.  Intransitive verbs will
use the no-object prefixes, because they have no object.

Transitive verbs also have an "object," which is somehow the recipient of
the action.  When you eat something, you're involved (as the eater), and
there's also involvment of something else: the stuff you eat, the eatee.
You eat the food.  That's what transitive verbs are: verbs which require
(if only implied) an object.  "vISop"/I eat *it*, qagh Sop HoD/the captain
eats the qagh.  Transitive verbs will have object-taking prefixes most of
the time. (note, though, that in Klingon, a transitive verb can still take
no-object prefixes to indicate sort of "in general": maSop/we eat.
Obviously we eat SOMETHING, but that something isn't even important enough
to be ellipsized with "it."  We're just saying that in general we perform
the act of eating, and what the object is really doesn't matter.)

The "-moH" suffix turns intransitive verbs into transitive ones (what it
does to verbs that already have obvious objects is another problem).
"jIQong"/I sleep can become "qaQongmoH"/I make you sleep.  See the
difference between "vem" and "vemmoH", etc.

The feature that I said was distinctive in English is something I think
even Krankor will agree that Klingon probably doesn't have, based on the
canon words we know.  In English, many verbs are used both transitively and
intransitively, and the difference between the two uses changes the meaning
dramatically.  In the wISop/maSop distinction, there really isn't much
difference: in both cases we're saying that we engage in the activity of
eating, and the only difference is whether or not we're bothering to
mention what we eat.  Even if "Qong" can take an object (I dunno, maybe you
can "sleep a bed" or "sleep a night"), the transitive and intransitive uses
of it would still not change the meaning much, I think we all agree: the
sentence would still be saying that the subject engages in sleeping.

But consider the English sentences "The stick broke" and "The stick broke
the cup."  In both sentences, we have the same verb (broke).  In one it's
transitive and in one it's intransitive.  But look at the difference in
meaning!  What winds up in pieces at the end?  It's very different.  In the
first sentence, the stick is on the *receiving* end of breakage, either due
to some other influence or all by itself.  In the second sentence, it's the
stick that makes something *else* break.  This is a pretty vast difference
(especially if you're a stick).  English examples like this abound ("Bob
drowned."/"Bob drowned Carol."  "The crane moved"/"The crane moved the
girder."  "The sky darkened"/"The cloud darkened the sky." etc).  It's
*this* feature that I believe Klingon lacks.  The very existence of the
- -moH suffix suggest that.  So do canon word-pairs like vem/vemmoH,
poS/poSmoH, SoQ/SoQmoH, taD/taDmoH, Qop/QopmoH, etc, all of which could be
translated as single words with dual usages in English ("I woke."/"I woke
the prisoner."  "The door opened."/"The fool opened the door."  "The window
closed on my fingers."/"You moron, you closed the window on my fingers."
"The water froze."/"The flow of cold air froze the water."  "My shoes wore
out."/"The rough terrain wore out my shoes." etc).

That help?

~mark


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMiXN5MppGeTJXWZ9AQEq5gL/TqLTw8oy/WQ7M5Da5foEcfYdipeuDYT9
jkAR4RoB21VyeWFLOEeacY/JcATDvQxsPRGh5xku6FB+XkOUZcesr7wA3aMwyl6m
K5wPmMp2iFBvmx8lKWmPpxS/YMwgQ9P+
=j76b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level