tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 01 23:10:11 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: states, activities
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: states, activities
- Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 02:16:30 -0400
ghItlh TaD:
>Hmmm... I wonder if you could give the command {yIjor}. At first glance,
>{jor} seems to me that it would be an active word. However, like {yItuj} or
>{yIHegh}, it isn't something that one can spontaneously do at will, and
>would require an active process (at least as far as people are concerned,
>giving the command to a starship with a self-destruct feature would be a
>different matter). It makes more sense to me, then, to give the command
>{yIjor'eghmoH}, i.e. "Make yourself explode!", rather than "Explode!"
I agree completely. But see below.
>If {yIjor'eghmoH} is preferable, then could {jor} be considered to be both
>stative and active, in different contexts, like you suggested above with
>"adjectives" like {yoH}? Would I be able to say {DujwIj Do'Ha' Qaw' Hov
jor}
>(My unlucky ship was destroyed by the exploding star), or would I have to
>say {Duj Qaw' jorbogh Hov}? This idea, however, seems to be discouraged by
>the proverb from the addendum of TKD: {qaStaHvIS wa' ram loSSaD Hugh SIjlaH
>qetbogh loD}, where Okrand used {qetbogh loD} instead of {loD qet}.
I'd accept <Duj Qaw' jorbogh Hov> as correct. I think most would agree <jor>
is not stative. But can you explode on your own volition? No, but that's not
MO's criterion anyway. But as <yIjor> is 'correct', it is also impossible.
We'd have to say <yIjor'eghmoH> as you pointed out, but that doesn't mean
the verb isn't active. It's just active without volition. It's something the
subject does, so it's active. I believe being brave is something we do, so I
can see it as active. But I also see it as clearly as a descriptive state.
How is it sensible to cause yourself to be brave? But how is it insensible
to say "the brave warrior"?
It is that exact sentence which shows it is improper to use verbs
adjectivally if they are active like <qet>. As long as we are expressing a
"state or quality" it's OK - but not an action. My guess is that <qet> is
purely active. We can run at a moment's notice without outside influence,
but it's not a state - it's not 'being running'. <tuj> is purely stative. We
can be hot, but we can't do being hot without outside help. <yoH> is perhaps
a little of both. It's clearly possible to be brave without outside
influence (short of the environment which makes the word relevant in the
first place). But it can be argued that you can't simply 'be brave' - you
need to be in that environment where you have fear to act in spite of.
I don't know about <yoH>. But I feel <jor> is active and <tuj> is stative.
And I feel that most verbs in Klingon are pretty clear. But that <yoH>!
Qermaq