tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 30 12:37:51 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: The years sometimes teach us what the days never know.
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: The years sometimes teach us what the days never know.
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:34:14 -0400
In a message dated 7/30/2003 11:41:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
>
>
> >From: [email protected]
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > And now someone will mention the canon:
> > > >>>
> > > qorDu'Daj tuq 'oS Ha'quj'e' tuQbogh wo'rIv. tuQtaHvIS Hem. ghaHvaD
> >quHDaj
> > > qawmoH.
> > >
> > > The sash that Worf wears is a symbol of his family's house. He wears it
> >proudly
> > > as a reminder of his heritage.
> > > <<<
> > >
And why _shouldn't_ this canon be mentioned, since it it the _only_ example
of a verb with {-moH} and an explicitly stated object, and secondary object
(i.e., the one with {-vaD} corresponding to the subject of the original
transitive verb?
The other cited examples using {qaghojmoH} are inconclusive, since this could
be an example of the prefix-trick and equivalent to {SoHvaD vIghojmoH}.
> > > 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.
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. 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}. It may turn out to be, but I can't find anything in TKD
itself or in Okrand's reasons for including {ghojmoH} separarately in the
glossary that lead to that conclusion.
> >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." 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Again, I ask you: why choose a maybe-not-correct way when you can choose the
> definitely-correct way?
>
Because I reject your assertion that you have found the "definitely-correct"
way. Why not just claim it as your opinion? That's all I'm
prepared to do at this time with my own position. While I believe in my arguments
and don't accept yours, I would never go so far as to claim that I have got
it "definitely" right!
And, darn, I seem to have gotten sucked into the argument again!
> SuStel
> Stardate 3577.4
>
-- ter'eS