tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 08 21:13:02 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <Hol wIja'chuq> was: Re:...
charghwI'vo':
Guido, welcome back. I've missed your insight. Meanwhile, this
time, when I looked into TKD to find the evidence supporting
your argument, I found instead language that suggests that you
are going overboard with very little substance behind you.
> >Althought the words that precede the rest of the sentence *usually* take
> >a type 5, it says right there in the KD that they do not HAVE to. True,
> >this may only be included because of the special cases of naDev, pa',
> >etc... but my 'instincts' say this isn't so. Yeah, I know 'instincts'
> >don't count for squat, but I think this would be soemthing worth
> researching/looking into.
>
> DujlIj yIlachHa'Qo' 'ej yIvuvtaH. Of course your instincts count. Instincts
> have everything to do with how languages are used.
>
> But the above paragraph of trI'Qal I am very much glad for. You people are
> *FINALLY* realizing what I've been screaming for months!!! {-Daq} is not
> necessary half the times you use it. In fact in TKD 3.3.5 in the part on the
> locative it states quite clearly that {-Daq} when used with verbs of motion
> is redundant.
Excuse me, but it says," There are a few verbs whose meanings
include locative notions, such as ghoS APPROACH, PROCEED. The
locative suffix need not be used on nouns which are the objects
of such verbs." This is a long shot from your suggestion that
all verbs of motion qualify. Evidence against your argument are
staring you right in the face. Notice the example {pa'Daq
yIjaH}. One would think that if ever there was a verb of
motion, {jaH} would be that verb.
Furthermore, even if you were right on this unjustifiable
expansion of the class of verbs that imply locative objects,
and you are not, then you would not have license to be so
condescending in your criticism of everyone, given, "If the
locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting sentence
is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong."
So lighten up a little, okay?
> For some reason I can't hope to ever know, no one seems to
> realize this until *I* point it out to them. {ghoS} is transitive! OK? Say it
> with me 3000 times until it's in your head. {Duj vIghoS} is entirely
> acceptable. The {-Daq} in {DujDaq jIghoS} is as redundant as the {-pu'} in
> {qIpchuq puqpu'}.
While this is true, it is also true that it is not WRONG to use
the {-Daq} in the first example or the {-pu'} in the second.
You are getting very worked up and patronizing over a very weak
argument.
> Realize also that virtually all verbs of motion are like
> this:
>
> {qach vIqet. tengchaH wIpaw. Sajraj boyIt.}
This is where you stepped off into fantasyland. There is
nothing in TKD that substantiates that statement. If you have
some other canon to point to, I could believe that perhaps
Okrand reconsidered his statements in TKD and expanded on them
in this way, but there is no language in TKD that suggests that
all verbs of motion are in the set of verbs referred to above.
He simply tells you that {ghoS} is such a verb and that there
are a small group of others, and he doesn't tell you which
ones. Meanwhile, {ghoS} is such an obviously exceptional word,
given only its definition: "approach, go away from, proceed,
come, follow (a course)". If that doesn't clue you in to the
idea that there is something unusual about this verb that might
set it apart from other verbs of motion with definitions like
"go", "walk", "jog, run", etc. then, gee, Guido, just exactly
who is being dense here?
> There's just no room to argue.
Right.
> It's there in TKD.
Take a closer look. Cite the examples that back you up.
> Plus, just to emphasize my
> point, {-Daq} on {pa'} (when it means "thereabouts"), {Dat}, and {naDev} is
> illegal.
I actually think this WEAKENS your argument, because if it were
true that you can never use {-Daq} with an object of a verb of
motion, and that there is always an implied {-Daq} in words
like {pa'} (when it means "thereabouts"), {Dat}, and {naDev},
then you could never use these nouns as objects of verbs of
motion. You could not say, {naDev yIghoS} "Come here," because
you absolutely cannot use a noun with {-Daq} with {ghoS} and
there is an implied {-Daq} in {naDev}. This is silly.
> I would also venture that it's illegal on {vogh}, but don't bet the
> mortgage on it.
I would offer a lot more support for suggesting that {vogh}
"somewhere" is grammatically identical to {naDev} "here" than I
can offer to this weak idea that all verbs of motion are
grammatically identical to {ghuS}.
> >[deletions for brevity]
> >> Though I don't find Hol wIja'chuq *that* ugly, the recasting is excellent.
> >> As you'll have noticed, I myself would just say [maja'chuqtaHvIS] Hol
> wIqel.
>
>
> ><Hol wIja'chuq> is definitely ugly. It is flat-out ungrammatical. Yes,
> >I *know* <ja'chuq> is a seperate dictionary entry, but that doesn't
> >change the fact that what we have here is a verb with a type 1
> >attached... and the grammar, as we know it, doesn't allow wI- at the
> >beginning of such verbs. Make sense?
>
> Yeah yeah. It doesn't conform to perfect logic, but then.. I feel quite
> acceptant of {Hol wIja'chuq}. It's rather colloquial (think of it, Klingon
> slang now!), but it makes perfect sense to even novices in the language. I
> personally find it more natural than the stiff {maja'chuqtaHvIS Hol wIqel} or
> some such. You see, if an American goes, "Lugnuts? We ain't got no more
> lugnuts!", he/she/it is in no danger of confusing anyone. You see, languages
> work by what people understand. They most certainly do not have to conform to
> total logic, as any natural language will demonstrate in an instant.
This is said by the same person who just raged at the
suggestion that someone might place {-Daq} on a noun that is
being used locatively and chastized us for daring to actually
place a plural suffix on a noun when it is used plurally.
Hello? Are you listening to yourself? It sounds to me like you
are less interested in improving the useage of the language
than you are in being the arbitor of what is right and what is
wrong. When YOU want to be strict, we should all follow the
rules exactly as you see them, and when YOU want to be lax, we
should all back off and let bad grammar go unchecked.
Too much ego, my friend. You are just back from vacation. Chill
out. Relax. You are among friends here and we are not all
children who do not know the language as well as you do.
> >--HoD trI'Qal
> > tlhwD lIy So'
>
> Yes trI'Qaloy, your instincts do count for squat. *?*
>
>
> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
>
> (that's guido with a capital G for God it's such a thrill to be me!!!!!!)*
Yeah, I kinda got that feeling. Meanwhile, the joy of
experiencing your ego in the first person should not require a
cost to similar joys experienced by others.
charghwI'