tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 29 22:31:01 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Much ado
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Much ado
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:30:43 -0400
From: Qermaq <[email protected]>
>KGT p. 117 qel 'ej ghItlh SuStel:
>
>>This is also a passage which shows that there definitely is some kind of
>>difference between verbs of state and verbs of activity.
>
>Well, I know he wrote 'state' amd 'activity', but it seems that the
question
>is one of volition. Can you become hot because you were commanded to? Only
>if you make yourself hot. I see that as the distinction being made.
That's the end result, but he tells you how to determine when you should use
the {-'eghmoH} combination: when the verb describes a state, and not an
activity. This seems like a very clear distinction to me. Applying that
distinction may prove troublesome, of course. As far as I can tell from the
passage, states and activities are mutually exclusive.
>>Is {tuv} a verb of state or a verb of activity? If you think you can say
>>{loD tuv} "the patient man," then you must accept that {tuv} is a verb of
>>state, and therefore you must accept that {yItuv'eghmoH} is the correct
>>command to give. (Or, perhaps Lawrence actually meant {petuv'eghmoH}.)
>
>Can one just 'be patient'? I think so. Why not? I would accept <petuv>.
>Maybe I'm a maverick here, but it clearly isn't grammatically wrong, just
>"peculiar".
It's *not* grammatically wrong, but it does cross the border between casual
Klingon and peculiarity. If one is trying to speak in the normal, accepted
manner, one uses {-'eghmoH}, plain and simple. Notice that {petaD} has a
very specific meaning: it does not mean to literally freeze, it means not to
move. The *only* way to express the literal phrase "freeze yourself!" is
with {petaD} (or {yItaD}). There is a clear difference here. Okrand tells
us that this happens generally with verbs of state (which makes it possible
for there to exist one or two exceptions to the general rule—he's wisely
covering his butt).
>>Still, this rule is broken sometimes. How about {QaghlIj tIchID; yIyoH!}
>>"Have the courage to admit your mistakes"? Is {yoH} a verb of state or a
>>verb of activity? Can you say {loD yoH} "brave man"?
>
>Bravery is something you do - you are willing to act in fear. I see it as
an
>active state
Based on what we've seen so far, and the passage in KGT in question, it
would seem that "active state" is something of an oxymoron. Being brave is
not something you do, it is something you are (or are not). Adding {-'egh}
and, particularly, {-moH}, turns a state into an activity. You are no
longer trying to "be" something, you are "causing" something, and "causing"
is an activity. Thus, {yIyoH'eghmoH} "Be brave!" I would guess that most
verbs don't *have* idiomatic versions as {taD} does.
> - I have no problem with either <yIyoH> or <loD yoH>. Consider
>this too - just because we translate <yoH> as an adjective, do Klingons see
>it as a state? Do we have proof that verbs of state and action are so
>segregated? I think MO needs to address this.
I think the many references we have seen of it so far, including in TKD,
KGT, HolQeD, and probably TKW, support the idea that Klingon does
distinguish between state and activity. Whether this is inherent to the
word or not is what really needs to be addressed. {yoH} is a state.
{yoHchoH} is an activity. There are going to be quite a few words, I am
sure, where we cannot agree which is a state and which is an activity. I
would guess that whatever turns out to be a state can also be used to
determine what is allowed in law'/puS and adjectival formations. All of
this seems to be related.
SuStel
Stardate 98327.8