tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 24 08:05:21 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Verb prepositional concepts

According to WestphalWz:
> 
> 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.

I think you are off on a rant here that seems to be missing two
significant points. First is that you don't seem to fully
respect the unique relationship between each verb and the
limited set of nouns that can serve that verb as a direct
object. Second is that you don't seem to fully respect the
massive difference between what we take to be a preposition in
English and how that meaning is served in Klingon. In English,
a preposition is one kind of helping word. In Klingon, a
preposition is a noun suffix {-Daq, -vo, etc}, a special
relationship between certain verbs and their direct objects
{ghoS, bav} or a specialized noun {Dung, bIng, etc.}.

> 1.  {qIm} is glossed as "pay attention, concentrate".  Still, it works so much
> better if it means "pay attention [to]".  

Meanwhile, it simply doesn't mean "pay attention [to]". You may
want it to mean that, but TKD doesn't tell us that and none of
the useage in canon suggests that. {buS} takes a direct object.
{qIm} does not. Get used to it.

> I cannot reconcile {loDDaq jIqIm} to
> mean "I pay attention to the man."  

I have not heard anyone suggest this to be the case. If I pay
attention to the man, {loD vIbuS}. If I absolutely needed to
use {qIm} for some reason and I wanted to express this, I'd
have to resort to something like, "SumDI' loDvetlh jIQImnIS."
Even that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm paying attention to
the man. It just means that I must have my attention active
when he is nearby. {QIm} does not take a direct object and
nobody is suggesting that it takes an indirect object or
connection via preposition. This is a suggestion you made up
all by yourself with no help from anyone, so while you appear
to be arguing with others, you are actually arguing with
yourself.

> TKD 3.3.5 does say that {-Daq} means "to".
> But, I think it does not fit this problem.

Neither does anybody else. {-Daq} indicates the location
occupied by the noun to which it is attached. The noun with
this attached gives a general sense of toward the noun or in
the general area of the noun, so it carries the English
meanings of "to, at, in, toward". Meanwhile, English uses each
of these same words for meanings that have nothing to do with
{-Daq}. I don't know anyone who argues with this.

> 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."

I personally have no interest in using {qImHa'} with an object.
I take it more in the "command" sense. An officer yells to his
troops {peQIm!} when something alerts him to danger. If he
discovers it was a false alarm, he yells {peQImHa'!} in much
the way one yells "Belay that order!" or "Disregard that
order!" and yes, I can see that in the English, I use a direct
object, but frankly I don't care. None of this causes me stress.

I have {buSHa'} as "ignore", which handles direct objects
nicely. I don't stay up at night worrying about whether or not
{qImHa'} can do the same thing. When I see Okrand USE {qIm}
with an object, I'll casually make a minor note in my
vocabulary to that effect and I'll start using it that way.
Until then, jISaHbe'chu'. {qIm} and all of its suffixed forms
work fine intransitively and that is how I will use them. I
KNOW they can work intransitively and I know that {buS} works
for all instances where I need to use a direct object. Secure
in the use of these tools, I don't care if a verb extends
beyond my need for it to function.

> In conclusion, I feel strongly that TKD is incomplete.  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.

We all know TKD is not perfect. Meanwhile, the vast majority of
it is quite good. Getting too passionate about a rather
frivolous detail doesn't really help much in my mission, which
is to express ideas clearly using this language, and build the
ability to do this more easily over a wider range of expressive
content or to grow the number of people who can appreciate it.

> 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.  

You speak as if "failing" to come to this conclusion is a
failure to recognize an obvious fact. Meanwhile, very few
people believe this IS a fact. You may very well be the ONLY
person who believes this is a fact. Krankor believes this to a
limited extent, though I strongly suspect he believes it less
than you do. Repeatedly declaring it to be a fact does not make
it accurate.

> 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.

Meanwhile, if we were to accept the idea that in order to twist
every apparently intransitive verb to some transitive meaning,
which preposition do we choose? If {Qong} is transitive, is the
object something we sleep ON, like a bed, or IN, like a room or
a house, or DURING, like a night, or WITH, like a mate, or
UNDER, like a sky or a roof, or would it be a dream, for which
we don't even HAVE a preposition...?

Would {jeS} be the group we participate in, or the location of
the participation, or the duration, or the moment of the
joining, or a list of the members of the group, or the mission
of the group...? What is the limited set of valid objects for
this verb?

Would {qIm} have as its object the focal point (like {buS}), or
the duration, or the location, or the direction, or the aspect
being measured or noted about the focal point, or the sense or
senses used to measure the focal point? You can't just make up
a relationship between a verb and what you propose to be its
object with no regard to its definition or examples used in
canon.

We have to learn how these verbs are used. Many of us initially
thought {Dub} would be intransitive, but all useage so far has
been transitive with the object being the noun being improved.
We had thought that if it were intransitive, then {DubmoH}
could create the meaning we now know {Dub} alone carries.

We have learned that while {jatlh} typically has as its object
the speech or language spoken, {ja'} typically has as its
object the person spoken to. I suspect a similar difference in
objects exists between {tlhob} and {ghel} with {tlhob} taking
the person as object and {ghel} taking the question itself as
object. Note that you would still NOT use a prefix showing an
object when using direct quotation.

The point is that we work with the best information we have.
This begins with the definition in TKD or KGT and is often
enhanced by other canon. We do NOT just decide as individuals
that a definition that appears to be intransitive can,
independant from anything from Okrand, be modified to our
liking in order to be used transitively with an object of our
choosing.

You have no "right" to do this. You never have and you never
will. Repeatedly asking for that right will not get it for you.

> 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.

Amazing. Simply amazing. Words fail to express my feelings in
response to this. I don't even feel a need to try to express
it, since I feel certain everyone pretty much already
understands. Everyone ELSE, that is. And I don't expect you to
change. Why should you? You've gone years without hearing
anything that the remarkable majority of people who understand
the languag well have told you.

Keep it up. The entertainment value grows as the years go by.

> peHruS

charghwI'

Back to archive top level