tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 25 00:10:58 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 03:10:13 -0400
From: WestphalWz <[email protected]>
>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?
Don't YOU see? {qImHa'} means "un-pay attention" or "mis-pay attention."
However, you can't write it this way in the dictionary because no one would
know to look it up this way. The ENGLISH phrase is obviously transitive
when being used to explain the Klingon; however, the Klingon itself is
merely a construct, and is not the starting point. The starting point is
the bare verb, {qIm}.
Your argument is {qImHa'} says "disregard," and "disregard" is transitive,
therefore {qImHa'} is transitive, therefore {qIm} is transitive. My
argument is {qIm} says "pay attention," therefore {qIm} is intransitive,
therefore {qImHa'} is intransitive. Mine has the added bonus of being
supported by Okrand when he explains that verbs plus {-Ha'}, when listed in
the dictionary, are there as a convenience to English speakers, but are not
special verbs in their own right. Your argument only holds up if you
violate what Okrand said about this.
> >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}.
Once again, I say to you: there is no convenient, yet still intransitive,
English word which means "disregard." My argument has a basis in extremely
strong evidence, your so-called fact has a basis in a violation of something
Okrand said. {qImHa'} helps to explain {qImHa'}, not {qIm}.
SuStel
Stardate 98314.3