tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 14 17:31:58 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "ser" and "estar" (to be)

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

From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>

> >I don't think the word "action" should be taken quite that literally.
>
> Yes, it should.  Although he doesn't state it in so many words, Okrand
> clearly distinguishes in practice between the two types of Klingon
> verbs:  qualities and actions.  This is one reason you don't see {-chu'}
on
> a quality.  Ditto for the perfective suffixes {-pu'} and {-ta'}.  Note
> Okrand's descriptions of these suffixes:
>
> {-chu'} "indicates ACTION IS PERFORMED absolutely properly" (PK)
>
> {-pu'} "indicates that AN ACTION IS COMPLETED. It is often translated by
> the English present perfect ('have DONE something)." (TKD)
>
> {-ta'} "is used when an ACTIVITY was deliberately undertaken, the
> implication being that someone set out TO DO SOMETHING and in fact did it"
> (TKD)

I disagree with this.  Yes, the grammar of Klingon does make a distinction
between actions and qualities, but Okrand's description of the grammar
usually does not.  If Okrand were being careful with the word "action,"
would he have written this on TKD p. 28:


    -vaD  for, intended for

        This suffix indicates that the noun to which it is attached is
    in some way the beneficiary of the action, the person or thing
    for whom or for which the activity occurs.

        Qu'vaD lI' De'vam  This information is useful for the mission.


Here, /lI'/ "be useful" is an example of an "action."  Unless it is your
contention that /lI'/ "be useful" is an action and /Quch/ "be happy" is not,
this excerpt contradicts the notion that when Okrand says "action," he means
"action, not quality."

TKD p. 32: "Each Klingon verb begins with a single prefix that indicates who
or what is performing the action described by the verb and, when relevant,
who or what is the recipient of that action."  We KNOW that verbs describing
qualities can take prefixes; an example is /bIlugh/ "You are right" in the
Appendix list of useful phrases.  This also contradicts the notion that when
Okrand says "action," he menas "action, not quality" (unless you want to
argue that this is proof that /lugh/ "be right, correct" is an action).

How about TKD p. 37:

            4.2.3. Type 3: Change

    Suffixes of this type indicate that the action described by the
    verb involves a change of some kind from the state of affairs
    that existed before the action took place.

        -choH  change in state, change in direction

        maDo'choH  we are becoming lucky, we are undergoing
                                a turn of luck (Do'  be lucky)


This one is said to talk about an "action," and one thing you can do to an
"action" is show a change in "state."  and his first example uses a verb of
quality (apparently).  If "states" and "actions" are supposedly different,
explicit things to Okrand, how can this be?

There are tons of other examples.  I won't go through them all.  The
conclusion is inescapable: when Okrand says "action," he usually means
"action or quality."  English doesn't have verbs of action and quality the
way Klingon does, and he was describing Klingon with English grammar terms.
In English, verbs are usually described as "actions."

Is the distinction of verbs of quality and verbs of action important?  Most
definitely!  Verbs of quality may be used adjectivally and as the qualities
in law'/puS constructions; verbs of action don't seem to do this.  Does this
mean that Okrand had this terminology in mind when writing TKD?  No.

As for canon not showing examples of /-qa'/ or /-chu'/ on qualities, it's
not like there's a whole lot of examples of each of these in the first
place.  Add to that a tendency to translate a little too close to English,
which doesn't express these ideas so succinctly.  I find it inconceivable
that I cannot say /jIQuchchu'/ "I am completely happy."

> By your argument, you should be able to say *{jIQuchpu'} "I have been
> happy, I used to be happy" (but I'm not now) or even {jIQuchta'}.

I see nothing wrong with that.  However, /jIQuchpu'/ doesn't necessarily
imply that I'm not happy now.  It means I was happy, and that condition
stopped, and nothing is said about whether it ever started up again.
English is similar: "I have been happy" doesn't necessarily imply I'm not
happy now.

> > > Is {jIH} "I am" really an *action*?
> >
> >/jIH/ isn't a verb, but you can use verb suffixes on it.
>
> Only certain suffixes, not all of them.

This is unproven.  It is my opinion that not all suffixes will go on
pronouns, but that even Klingons might not agree on the list of suffixes.  A
lot of suffixes create productive and understandable expressions, while
others seem to turn the word into a tortuous nightmare, though they might
make sense in certain circumstances.  We had a discussion about this very
question at the /qep'a' wa'maHDIch 'uQ'a'/.

We can't make certain determinations like this with our relatively tiny
number of sources.  Maybe we've never seen /jIH'egh/ because it's very
specific in meaning, not because it's not allowed.  If we didn't have
/jIHtaHbogh/ in the Appendix, I'm sure you'd be dead set against the
possibility of the word (I would be).

SuStel
Stardate 4038.2

Back to archive top level