tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 18 09:54:56 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

RE: use of DIng

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: use of DIng
• Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:53:08 -0700
• User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.1.13

Because you're forced to agree, even though you don't like me?

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: use of DIng
> From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, September 18, 2009 12:42 pm
> To: [email protected]
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> -- ter'eS
> 
> --- On Fri, 9/18/09, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> > Subject: RE: use of DIng
> > To: [email protected]
> > Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:03 AM
> > Frankly, I think that's a terrible
> > way to reason out linguistic puzzles.
> > Even if one assumed a homogeneous culture, one's language
> > need not
> > necessarily mimic it by subjective example.
> > 
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: RE: use of DIng
> > > From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> > > Date: Fri, September 18, 2009 10:44 am
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I'm tending to think you are right on philosophical
> > grounds: since Klingons prefer action, they probably prefer
> > to be the actor rather than the one acted upon, so the
> > simple stem of most verbs would describe the subject as
> > performing (or experiencing) the verb (the intransitive
> > usage), with {-moH} available for when you want to refer to
> > the agency that causes them to undergo the verb
> > (transitive). By that reasoning, for verbs we have no canon
> > for that can go either way in English, my default assumption
> > would be that they are intransitive in Klingon. If my memory
> > wasn't so bad, I'd cite some examples!
> > > 
> > > -- ter'eS
> > > 
> > > --- On Fri, 9/18/09, Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: RE: use of DIng
> > > > To: "'[email protected]'"
> > <[email protected]>
> > > > Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 8:30 AM
> > > > ter'eS:
> > > > >> Does anyone recall if we know whether
> > {DIng} is
> > > > transitive or
> > > > >> intransitive? Is the subject the thing
> > turned or
> > > > the person who 
> > > > >> turns the thing?
> > > > 
> > > > lay'tel SIvten:
> > > > >I couldn't find any canon for it. Since
> > merely adding
> > > > {-moH} would 
> > > > >make it the transitive version, I hope it's
> > the
> > > > intransitive meaning.
> > > > >If it's the transitive meaning already, then
> > it's a lot
> > > > harder to 
> > > > >get the intransitive meaning.
> > > > 
> > > > There's no canon for {Ding} "spin" - or {tlhe'}
> > "turn"
> > > > either. Like lay'SIv, I imagine they both work
> > like
> > > > {jIr} "rotate, twirl" vs. {jIrmoH} "twirl X,
> > cause X to
> > > > rotate". (The context in KGT p.59-60 was
> > specifically
> > > > about bat'leth movements, but I imagine {jIrmoH}
> > can be used
> > > > for other things as well.)
> > > > 
> > > >Â 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Voragh      Â
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > > Canon Master of the Klingons
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

• Prev by Date: RE: use of DIng
• Next by Date: Re: Relative clause in a relative clause
• Previous by thread: RE: use of DIng
• Next by thread: Relative clause in a relative clause
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level