tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 07 12:48:41 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC Rules... Transitive vs Intransitive

December 07, 1996 2:38 AM, jatlh qeyloS:

> jatlh SuStel:
> 
> >Here's the example I've always used. Take the verb {ghor}. It's glossed as 
> >"break." Does this mean "break something," or does it mean "fall apart"? 
> >These are different meanings! English tends to allow almost anything to be 
> >used transitively or intransitively, but that's no reason to assume that 
> >Klingon can, too.
> 
> I agree that's no reason to assume that Klingon can, but I don't understand
> the reason we assume that Klingon can't??????????????

It isn't a certain fact, but there are reasons to believe that Klingon doesn't 
fiddle with the transitivity.  The best is the {-moH} suffix.  If it didn't 
matter what way you used a verb, then what would be the point of {-moH}?  You 
could just as easily say *{Duj vIchen} for "I build the ship."  But this is 
wrong!  {chen} is definitely intransitive, and so there's no way you can do 
this.  Rather, you use the {-moH} suffix: {Duj vIchenmoH}.

Here's another reason.  Would you agree that a stative verb like {Quch} "be 
happy" should be allowed to be transitive?  If that were the case, you could 
say *{SoH qaQuch jIH} for "I make you happy."  But you can't do this, either!  
A literal translation shows the problem in this case: "I happy you."  It 
doesn't even work in the English (in this particular example).  Again, you 
need {-moH}: {SoH qaQuchmoH jIH} "I make you happy."

> >Unfortunately, there are some verbs which are not clear at all. Either they 

> >have not been used in canon or were used ambiguously. It's these we fight 
> >about!
> 
> I can understand the confusion. But I don't see this as a serious point.
> Understand from my point of view. I am trying to learn Klingon as a newbe
> and  more expericenced people can't agree on whether or not verbs are
> transitive. Something that in my native language I didn't realize existed
> until a little while ago.

Ne neither.  I've learned a great deal about the English language since I 
started studying Klingon.

If the point of Klingon was just for people to translate in and out of 
English, then there wouldn't be a big deal.  But Klingon is terribly unique in 
one respect: it is an artifical language designed to simulate a real one.  And 
in this simulation is assumed the existence of an alien race called Klingons.  
It may not seem like much to you whether {ghor} is transitive or not, because 
you can translate in and out of English either way, but you might be speaking 
completely incorrectly as far as a Klingon is concerned.  What we're worried 
about in these discussions is whether or not Klingons would accept what we say 
as correctly spoken.

bIjatlhHa'chugh qaHoH!

> In your last example:
> >What does the sentence {ghor taj} mean? Does it mean that the knife causes 
> >something to be made into pieces, or does it mean that the knife itself 
> >becomes several pieces? Well, now we know. In TKD, Okrand uses the sentence 

> >{pIpyuS pach DaSop DaneHchugh pIpyuS puS DaghornIS}. "If you want to eat a 
> >pipius claw, you'll have to break a few pipiuses." "You break them." Not 
> >"You break" (as in, you fall into pieces). THAT's how it works.
> 
> I'm curious about "THAT's how it works." Is that how it works or is that how
> he used it. Do we know for sure. Personally I have a hard enough time with
> grammar and wouldn't make it more complicated. If needed a verb can be
> defined by context. Isn't there any examples of transitive verbs being used
> intransitivtly like "I go" no object. I don't know if this is exactly the
> example I'm looking for but it the only one I can think of.

Here's the deal: when we find a canon source, we can say: "This is how the 
verb {ghor} *does* work.  If we haven't yet seen it in an intransitive form, 
then we don't know whether or not it takes one.  I, for one, always try to 
speak in correct Klingon.  If I'm really not sure about whether something 
works in a certain way, but I *do* know it works another way, then I'll choose 
the definitely correct method.

So, we're not exactly laying down rules.  We're saying "Here's the way you CAN 
use it, and this means that such-and-such probably works.  Until we know 
otherwise, this is your best bet."

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96936.0

Back to archive top level