tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 01 03:43:29 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Accident, purpose, happenstance or choice?

In reply to Jeremy Cowan's points raised about the use of -wI', I 
would like to add the following:

>The real question here is ... just what does "one who does be white" 
mean?

Did you mean someone or thing which just happens to be white, or 
something whose purpose is to be white (e.g. a whitewashed porch)?

If you examine the entry for the verb "white," it reads as "white, be 
white (v)." It's the same for other similar verbs ("absentminded, be 
absentminded," "red, be red," "big, be big" etc); something that _is_ 
big, for example, translates in English as "the big thing."

If the condition is an accident, rather than design (e.g. a door 
which is white, rather than a device designed to contain things - a 
container), the usage is simple; the verb form follows the noun, in 
the manner of an adjective (bearing in mind Marc Okrand's instruction 
on adjectives in TKD). So, for example, a "white door" is <lojmIt 
chIS,> a "big thing" is <Doch tIn,> and "the ignorant fool" is <qoH jIv.>

The word for "container" of <ngaSwI'> is a good choice: it is a 
device whose purpose is to contain things, hence the need for the 
<-wI'> suffix. The same goes for the term "probe" of <nejwI'> since 
it is a device designed to search. Hence the lines spoken by Vixis in 
STV: The Final Frontier:

DoS wIpuSpu'                 We have sighted a target.
nejwI' tIQ 'oH                  It is a probe of ancient origin.

Or something like that. Similarly, a "killer" is <HoHwI',> an "eater 
of Terran food" is <tera'ngan Soj SopwI'> and a "fighter" is <SuvwI'> 
because, as sentient beings, they are capable of making the choice to 
do these things (or, like engineers and helmsmen, they are qualified 
to do their assigned jobs).

I am currently unsure of how to derive the term for "paint" of any 
colour (let alone the general term for "colour" - two more terms to go 
onto the Okrand Wish List) but I would describe the terms "white 
container" and "white probe" as <ngaSwI' chIS> and <nejwI' chIS> 
respectively, because their condition (that of being white) is an 
accident, rather than design or purpose.

Even if the choice of condition was deliberate (e.g. "I hate that 
silly Romulan" <romuluSnganvetlh Dogh vIpar> or "Give me the yellow 
book" <jIHvaD paq SuD yInob>), the condition of the object is still 
an accident, since "being silly" is not the Romulan's purpose (or 
choice!), and "being yellow" does not affect the contents of the book.

But if I was to say something like "The food is in the freezer" 
<taDmoHwI'Daq 'oHtaH Soj'e'> I use <-wI'> because the device was 
designed to freeze things. The reply of "But this cold food is 
useless to me" <'ach jIHvaD lI'be' Sojvam bIr> does not need <-wI'> 
because its condition, "being cold," is an accident. It just happens 
to be cold. It was never designed to be cold.

... Oh, my Goddess, What was I on last night? I'm spouting philosophy 
here. Enough said. If you want to discuss "accident vs. purpose," 
start reading Kant and Russell. Me, I'm off to reground my thoughts 
in some serious Kirk and Picard ... ;-)

I only hope I've been of help.

peqIm: I am  a Discordian. If you have felt confusion from any of the 
above, I'm only too glad to have executed my religious duties ... ;-) But 
email me with your connents, in any case; I value your feedback.

Lord Havelock
*******************************
"Maybe it's because I run into so many people who are hostile, simply because they can't open their minds to the possibilities,
that sometimes the need to mess with their heads outweighs the millstone of humiliation." -Special Agent Fox Mulder
email me on [email protected]. Just call me Lord Sinister

Back to archive top level