tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 03 15:20:45 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: The years sometimes teach us what the days never know.

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

>From: [email protected]
>
>In a message dated 7/30/2003 11:41:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
>[email protected] writes:
>
> > > > and possibly a fight will break out and blood will be
> > > > spilled... again.
> > > >
> > >
> > >The only reason a fight might break out is because you state
> > >your opinions about the object of {ghojmoH} as fact rather
> > >than opinion.  The honorable thing to do is simply say, "In
> > >my opinion..."
> >
> > Let us not forget the supporting evidence.  Marc Okrand has stated that 
>the
> > verb+suffix entries in TKD were added for the convenience of English
> > speakers looking up words.  Suppose you're looking for "teach."  Klingon
> > doesn't have a root word "teach," but it does have /ghoj/ "learn," and 
>from
> > that you can construct /ghojmoH/ "cause to learn."  So an entry was 
>added,
> > /ghojmoH/ "teach," purely for the convenience of English speakers.
> >
> > Given this, the ONLY reason why someone would insist on saying something
> > like */tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH/ "I teach Klingon" is because they are
> > translating poorly in English.
> >
>
>Let's avoid ad hominem attacks, OK?  If I support that construction, the
>"ONLY" reason is not because I'm a poor translator.

Seems like you're looking for a fight.  I did not attack you, directly or 
otherwise.  Given this, I drew a conclusion.  Whether you agree with it or 
not, I had no intention of attacking you or anyone.

>Your previous paragraph does not support your conclusion. Okrand
>included the entry to facilitate finding the word, but that says
>nothing about what happens to the object of a transitive verb when
>{-moH} is added or where the previous transitive subject ends up.

You don't add /-moH/ to verbs that already have subjects and objects.  You 
add /-moH/ to a verb, and then give it subjects and objects that are 
appropriate.

What makes you assume that Klingon has to have any kind of ditransitivity?  
Aside from one unexplained example with grammar that otherwise contradicts 
the grammar of TKD?

I find it to be much more likely that Okrand was given a sentence to 
translate, saw a tricky bit with ditransitivity in English, and wrote 
something, saying, "Uhh, here you go."

>Indeed,
>what you say could be taken to _support_ my position: since the natural
>object of {ghoj} appears to be the thing which one learns, and {ghojmoH}
>is simply {ghoj} + {-moH} and included in the dictionary just as a finding
>aid, there is no reason to assume that the object of {ghojmoH} is different
>from that of {ghoj}.

Baloney and sophistry.  TKD makes it very clear what the /-moH/ suffix does: 
it makes the subject cause the object to do verb.  The heritage example 
breaks that grammar.  Some people want to claim that it's a totally new 
grammar.  I, for one, thnk the more reasonable explanation is that it's an 
error.

Either way, my ultimate point is NOT that you're wrong and I'm right.  My 
point is that my way of saying these things is definitely right, literally 
by the book, and yours isn't.

yaS vIghojmoH.  tlhIngan Hol ghoj.
I teach the officer Klingon.
100% according to the rules.  The multiple-sentences-to-express-a-concept 
bit is supported by a whole lot of canon (e.g., /QaghmeylIj tIchID; yIyoH/ 
"Have the courage to admit your mistakes"), and doesn't violate any rule or 
observed behavior.  This works.

*yaSvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH.
The ONLY thing this has going for it is that it matches the grammar of the 
Skybox card with the heritage sentence.  Otherwise it violates the 
explanation of /-moH/ in TKD, and does not have any other basis in canon.

> > >What happens to transitive verbs and their objects when
> > >{-moH} is added is indeed a hot topic, and by no means
> > >as cut-and-dried as DloraH implies.  I've spilled much
> > >blood on this topic myself in the past, but I have come
> > >to see that this argument is unwinnable by either side
> > >and that only MO can resolve it.  So until we get more
> > >canon or a definite ruling, I'm not getting sucked into
> > >any more fights.  Either pick a position and use it (but
> > >recognize that it is only your opinion), or avoid the
> > >construction altogether.
> >
> > Let us not forget that the alternatives that DloraH provides are
> > uncontroversially correct, whereas the example in question is not.  It 
>can
> > only be uncontroversially correct if Okrand says something to make it 
>so.
> > Given that state of affairs, why on earth wouldn't you want to use a
> > 100%-guaranteed-to-be-correct version?
> >
> > It is fact, not opinion, that /matlh vIghojmoH; tlhIngan Hol ghoj/ means 
>"I
> > teach Maltz Klingon."  Literally, it says "I cause Maltz to learn; he 
>learns
> > Klingon."  No controversy there.
> >
>
>Please cite me the canon to support this. In the absence of canon, it
>is not fact. To me, your first sentence says "I teach (the subject called)
>maltz."

TKD p. 86:
ghoj   learn (v)

TKD p. 38:
-moH  cause
Adding this suffix to a verb indicates that the subject is causing a change 
of condition or causing a new condition to come into existence.

Thus:
/ghojmoH/ means "subject causes object to learn."

MSN Forum, December 1, 1997:
For the most part, entries in THE KLINGON DICTIONARY (and also in the 
addendum in KLINGON FOR THE GALACTIC TRAVELER) that consist of verb + suffix 
are indeed just that, verb + suffix.
[...]
A problem comes in because some of these forms (that is, some of these verb 
+ suffix combinations) are so common, they seem to, in the minds of some 
Klingons anyway, act as if they were simply verb, and not verb + suffix at 
all.  This seems to happen only when the suffix in question is /-moH/ 
"cause." [...] Speakers who do this seem to be aware that they are breaking 
the rules, so they are doing it for rhetorical effect.  (It has the same 
sort of feeling, perhaps, as if someone were to say in English, "Don't 
cellular phone me this afternoon" or "I've been postnasal dripping all 
morning" ...) [...] and while some Klingon speakers may treat them as such, 
the wisest course is to leave such things to the poets and keep /-moH/ in 
its Type 4 position.


(Notice that my viewpoint and Okrand's even agree about what's wise!)

Now, I have provided the canon that demonstrates that I can say /yaS 
vIghojmoH.  tlhIngan Hol ghoj/ "I teach the officer Klingon."  I have 
provided canon as to why it's unlikely that you can say */tlhIngan Hol 
vIghojmoH/ for "I teach Klingon."  Can you explain to me, using canon 
evidence, why you disagree with my construction?  I do not ask for evidence 
supporting your construction.  My point is not that your construction is 
wrong, it is that mine is right.

>  What I don't understand is why you are so willing to split the object
>from its verb when {-moH} is added when a) no other Klingon suffix has this
>effect; b) we have canon that seems to indicate that the original
>object of the transitive verb is _not_ moved from the object place:
>{quHDaj qaw} > {quHDaj qawmoH}.  Your  position to me seems to be the
>one that's violating canon.

One does not "move" objects and subjects.  As stated in the TKD entry on 
/-moH/, cited above, the suffix indicates that the subject causes the object 
to do verb.  There is no noun-migration going on.

I have split nothing.  In Klingon, the concept requires two sentences.  
(You're not translating from English, right?  You objected to my suggestion 
that you have translated poorly from English.  My sentence does not 
translate from English.  It is constructed and executed in Klingon.)  "I 
cause the officer to learn.  He learns Klingon."  These are two different 
actions, so it's not surprising that it requires two sentences.  There is no 
root word in Klingon that equates to English "teach."

> > Only slightly controversial is (*)/tlhIngan Hol'e' matlh vIghojmoH/ "As 
>for
> > Klingon, I cause Maltz to learn."
> >
>
>This is Krankor's opinion, one I don't share, but again, please cite the 
>canon.

"Please cite" is the Internet's favorite way of saying, "Maybe if he has to 
do research he'll look wrong if he's too lazy."  You are perfectly capable 
of reading TKD.  I'll oblige, however, to prove the point.

This is not Krankor's opinion, it is my opinion.  I believe that Krankor 
came up with something similar, and his article was inspiring to me, but he 
did not include the /-'e'/ suffix, which is, I think, key to this statement.

TKD p. 29:
-'e'   topic
This suffix emphasizes that the noun to which it is attached is the topic of 
the sentence.

Star Trek V:
qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS
You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy.
(Notice here that /SuvwI''e'/ "warrior - as topic" is not performing any 
role in the law'/puS construction.  It's just been stuck at the head of the 
sentence (along with /qIbDaq/ "in the galaxy") to provide semantic content.  
The topic of the sentence is "warriors."

TKD p. 68:
If the subject [of a "to be" construction] is a noun, it follows the 
third-person pronoun ... and takes the /-'e'/ "topic" suffix . . . .
/puqpu' chaH qama'pu' 'e'/ [sic]  The prisoners are children.
/pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'/  The commander is in his quarters.
These sentences might also be translated as "As for the prisoners, they are 
children; As for the commander, he is in his quarters."

(While not conclusive, this last citation suggests that all "to be" 
constructions with nouns on both sides of the prounoun as using /-'e'/ as a 
topic marker as well.)


With this evidence of the topic marker /-'e'/, it is not difficult to 
construct the sentence.  /matlh vIghojmoH/ means "I teach Maltz."  Now add 
/tlhIngan Hol'e'/ "Klingon language -- as topic."  Since it's not the 
subject or the object of the sentence, you put it in the header.  (TKD p. 
60: Any noun in the sentence indicating something other than subject or 
object comes first, before the object noun.  Such nouns usually end in a 
Type 5 noun suffix.")  /tlhIngan Hol'e' matlh vIghojmoH/ "As for the Klingon 
language, I teach Maltz."

> > Absolutely controversial is */matlhvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH/ "I cause 
>for
> > Maltz to learn Klingon(?)."
> >
>
>And yet, I would argue that this model is supported by canon and does not
>rely on the spurious process of splitting the verb from its natural object.

You have yet to demonstrate any canon evidence whatsoever that the subject 
matter of the verb /ghoj/ is the natural object of the verb, or even the 
verb + /-moH/.  Please do this.

Once again: I did NOT say "Your construction is wrong."  I said your 
construction is "absolutely controversial."  Do you disagree with this?

SuStel
Stardate 3588.9

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Back to archive top level