tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 24 22:43:44 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Verb prepositional concepts

In a message dated 98-04-24 11:17:57 EDT, charghwI' debates a post by peHruS:

First of all, I posted my original, most of which is repeated below, regarding
only two Klingon verbs, {jeS} and {qIm}.  Then, I agreed that SuStel's
description of the proper usage of {jeS} is as an intransitive verb with the
locative construction.  This leaves the face that I am debating using {qIm}
beyond its glossed form or "pay attention, concentrate" to "pay attention
[to], regard".  I now add "heed," which conceivably could take a direct
object.

<< 
 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.

charghwI' does recognize the distinct difference in intensity of meaning of
two different Klingon verbs, {qIm} and {buS}.  While {qIm} means "pay
attention," {buS} is MUCH stronger in meaning "focus only on, think only
about".
 
 > 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.
 
 > 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...?
 
Here, charghwI' has chosen to interject into this argument the Klingon verb
{Qong}, which has been generally accepted as only intransitive.  This is
charghwI's choice, not peHruS' choice.  peHruS had written in the original
post that almost any non-stative verb might be either transitive or
intransitive requiring the proper set of verb pronomial prefixes.

To humor debate about {Qong}, in English one can say "sleep the night."  To
cover this, I think {wa' ram Qong vay'} without claiming that {wa' ram} is the
object.  Rather it is still a time stamp.

< 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? >

Yes, peHruS thinks the object of {jeS} would be the "party, meeting, group,
camp, etc."
 
 < 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. >

Now, this argument I really like.  I would absolutely love to see every word
MO has ever created be used many times by MO himself.
 
 < 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. >
 
charghwI' seems to have missed some past discussion about {tlhob}.  It never
meant "ask a question".  It means "request, ask, plead".  From canon phrases
we have discovered that it really means "request [that], ask [for someone to
do], ask [that], plead [that]".  And, I add that "ask [for]" is covered by
{poQ}, glossed as "demand, require."  {poQ} seems to work for "order [food],"
too.

Finally, charghwI' has brought up {tlhob}.  This was not part of peHruS'
argument.

< 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.
 
I agree wholeheartedly.  For this reason, I had already admitted that {jeS}
works fine as glossed, "participate," not "participate [in]".

Then I started wondering aloud on this listserv about {qIm}, since it really
would work better if TKD is "incomplete" and the gloss should have been "pay
attention to".

  > peHruS
 
 charghwI' >>

In my sign-off, someone will notice a deliberate use of a verb pronomial
prefix.

Qapla'     batlh wIghojtaH     peHruS

Back to archive top level