tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 23 15:14:50 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:12:00 -0700
At 14:33 98-04-23 -0700, peHruS wrote:
}Recently there has arisen some discussion expressing that the tlhIngan Hol
}verb {jeS} does not take a direct object; rather it must use the locative
}construction. The basis of this argument is that TKD glosses the English as
}"participate," not as "participate in".
}
}While I do find it logical that "one participates at a party," I do have a lot
}of trouble with a few of other Klingon verbs which would have to include a
}prepositional concept in order to take a direct object and I have trouble
}expressing them using the locative construction.
}
}1. {qIm} is glossed as "pay attention, concentrate". Still, it works so much
}better if it means "pay attention [to]". I cannot reconcile {loDDaq jIqIm} to
}mean "I pay attention to the man." TKD 3.3.5 does say that {-Daq} means "to".
}But, I think it does not fit this problem.
I agree. I would say {loDvaD jIqIm}, or {loD vIbuS}.
}Next, {qImHa'} is glossed as "disregard". Now, this can take a direct object
}easily. {loD vIqImHa'} works. If we extend the meaning of {qIm} beyond what
}the gloss directly tells us to include "regard,"--after all, stripping the
}{-Ha'}, that's what we get--then, {qIm} logically takes a direct object, also.
}{loD vIqIm} now translates as "I regard the man."
It is a debatable point. The argument that you present, the argument tat
both are intranitive and the argument that one is and one isn't all have
supporting points.
}In conclusion, I feel strongly that TKD is incomplete.
The Klingon expression is {quSDaq bIba'}. The English is "NO SHIT!"
That TKD is incomplete is axiomic.
>From the first page of the introduction: "This grammatical sketch is
intended to be an outline of Klingon grammar, not a complete description."
Where have you been?
}Not only are there
}typing errors and even misused words (e.g., yIHaghchu' page 48), there are
}misglosses (e.g., Qaw' = destroy (n), pages 103 and 128). Now, if MO would
}use every word ever he created in sentences to show us what is right, I'd be
}really happy. Before that shall have happened, however, we KLI members have
}taken the liberty to "correct" the "obvious" errors.
They have to be pretty obvious, but yes, when they are, we do. When I was
first starting there were a lot of things I thought were obviously wrong
that I've since seen Okrand rationalize as idiom.
}It is not so obvious to some Klingonists that the very nature of Klingon verbs
}is that they either or take an object or do not take an object, not based at
}all on how they are glossed (complete or incomplete) but on whether they have
}affixed pronomials which indicate an object or no object. If I am correct,
}this means that {jeS} and {qIm} can take an object at the same time it is
}allowed to not take an object--the pronomial set used must change accordingly.
}If I am correct again, {jeS} suddenly has to mean "participate [in]" and {qIm}
}has to mean "pay attention [to]," beyond the TKD glosses, which have not
}included the portions inside the braces.
If they have those meanings, yes. The conservative Klingonist doesn't
assume they do.
}2. {juHDaq jIqet} contains the ambiguity that it means either "I run at the
}house" or "I run to the house." While I would never say that {juH vIqet}
}means "I run the house"--{juH vIche'} covers that--I do think it works quite
}well for "I run to the house." The strength of my opinion lies in the fact
}that {juHDaq jIqet} so obviously means "I run AT the house." This sentence is
}locative. TKD 3.3.5 explains {-Daq} as a locative, NOT as the completion of
}an inseparable prepositional concept of a verb.
{juHDaq jIqet} "so obviously" means "I run towards the house" "I run to the
house" "I run in the house" or "I run on the house."
The only differnce between "I run at the house" and "I run towards the
house" that I can see in English is that the former can imply an attack as
well as an approach. {juH vIHIvmeH vIghoS}.
Truth is, peHruS, we've had this discussion before. The last time you
regurgitated an old post to rediscuss, I took the trouble to find the
original thread and post the URL to refresh your memory. I leave that to
you this time. While I don't really mind explaining the same things over and
over again to new beginners, I draw the line at being asked to respond again
to the savage beating you are giving this very dead hobby horse.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian