tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 24 16:50:34 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:03:58 -0400
From: WestphalWz <[email protected]>
>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.
WRONG. I said that it does not take a direct object, and that SOME OTHER
CONSTRUCTION must do. SOMETIMES this is locative, sometimes it is not.
Choose the most appropriate form for each case. Don't twist my words by
saying everything has to be locative. That is not true.
> The basis of this argument is that TKD glosses the English as
>"participate," not as "participate in".
No, the basis of the argument is that TKD, KGT, and a couple of other
sources very frequently define verbs with the English prepositional concept
INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION. Furthermore, I don't believe there are any
verbs in the vocabulary which are used in examples in such a way as to force
you to include a prepositional concept where one is not already written.
For instance, never does {qIm} "pay attention" have an example with an
object.
With these two very strong points, it is fairly clear to me and to others
that one must accept that the definitions were written as they are to
indicate what sort of object they can take. If the definition is an English
word which cannot take an object without adding a preposition where one does
not already exist in that definition, then the Klingon word does not take
that object! Got it?
>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.
That's because the locative is not always the most appropriate way to do
things, as you well know.
>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.
loD vIbej.
I watch the man.
>Next, {qImHa'} is glossed as "disregard". Now, this can take a direct
object
>easily.
But, since Okrand himself has told us that virtually all of the entries with
verb + suffix are not distinct verbs in and of themselves, we must assume
that there is no difference in grammar between {qIm} and {qImHa'}.
Therefore, {qImHa'} is NOT transitive.
Okrand was writing verb+suffix definitions to make English-Klingon lookup
easier. It's much easier to try to find "disregard" than it is to look up
"not pay attention." Can YOU think of an obvious, intransitive definition
which means "not pay attention" and which doesn't happen to be transitive?
>{loD vIqImHa'} works.
No, it does not.
>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."
Circular reasoning. If you can assume that the grammar for {qImHa'} must be
the same as {qIm}, which is what you did for this argument, then you have to
start with {qIm}, the root word, not {qImHa'}, which is simply {qIm} +
{-Ha'}.
>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.
If you can't tell the difference between an error and a correct method of
usage, well what's the point of my arguing with you?
>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)
IF THE VERB WERE MEANT TO TAKE AN OBJECT, THE DEFINITION WOULD HAVE BEEN
WRITTEN THAT WAY!
>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.
This is totally bogus.
>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."
"So obviously"??? Here's your problem. You're trying to figure out how
Klingon works based on how it's translated into English. That's wrong.
Each Klingon word has a meaning. Each Klingon verb has a meaning, and a way
in which it may be used. It is irrelevant to the Klingon lanuage how the
most comparable English word is used. However, in order to explain Klingon
in English terms, you have to construct the definitions to add in or take
away from any differences which exist between the lanuages. If the Klingon
word {qIm} really means simply that you begin to focus "on something," what
the hell would Klingons care that English must always specify what you're
paying attention to? They wouldn't care at all! A Klingon would see {qIm}
and understand that you're talking about "paying attention," and would see
your argument, and say, "But I'm just doing {qIm}. I don't {qIm} something.
Just like I simply {qet} or {Qong} or {Sup}, I also simply {qIm}. I don't
care if you can't do that in your language. Maybe English has got it wrong.
Hey, I'm going to send a message to the English-language mailing list I'm
on, and suggest that we remove all prepositions from any usage of the phrase
'pay attention' . . ."
Similarly with suffixes. {juHDaq jIqet} does NOT obviously mean "I run AT
the house." It means I run, and the house plays the locative role. It does
not say whether you are running TOWARDS the house, or IN the house, or ON
the house. It just simply says {juHDaq}. This is not a problem, or an
error. It is the way Klingon works. Get used to it. If you want to be
more specific, explain more fully.
Klingon is not funny-looking English. Please stop treating it that way.
>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.
Who ever said it was? You're making that up.
Klingon does not have prepositions. Period. It has locatives, it has
beneficiaries, it has objects. No prepositions. It has timestamps and
adverbials and subjects. No prepositions. It has subordinate clauses and
nouns, verbs, and pronouns. No prepositions.
Got it? No prepositions.
SuStel
Stardate 98312.8