tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 24 23:17:45 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- From: WestphalWz <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 02:15:34 EDT
In a message dated 98-04-24 20:17:13 EDT, SuStel writes back to peHruS:
<< >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.>
You are telling me that a verb which obviously can be transitive cannot be.
How can you assume this preposterous position? {loD vIqImHa'} directly
translates as "I disregard the man." No problem whatsoever. Don't you see?
>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'}. >>
Circular reasoning? True. But, SuStel is using circular reasoning, too. He
is saying that because {qIm} appears intransitive to him, therefore {qImHa'}
MUST follow suit and be intransitive also. SuStel overlooks the FACT that the
LATER addition to the vocabulary, {qImHa'}, helps explain {qIm}.
Qapla' batlh wIghojjaj peHruS