tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 25 06:58:33 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC jISuptaH
I appears my message did not go through.
I appologize if you get this twice.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 13:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: R.B Franklin <[email protected]>
To: Klingon Language List <[email protected]>
Cc: Klingon Language List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: KLBC jISuptaH
charghwI'vo':
> Guido, thanks for changing the header. I think you judged quite
> well both to offer the original to the beginners and to carry
> the continued discussion away from their focussed attention.
Dung mu'mey bochoHlaH 'a SuSo'laHbe'.
> > >My own suspicion is that Klingon verbs are much like English
> > >verbs in that some are only transitive, some are only
> > >intransitive and others can be either...
>
> > I cannot believe that any verbs could go either way in Klingon. English is
> > exceptional among language for allowing many of its verbs to go either way.
> > You can look all you want; you won't readily find this phenomenon elsewhere
> > in the world. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
bImuj 'e' vItoblaHbe'.
> What I WANT is for Okrand to list transitivity for all his
> verbs or to explain why it is okay not to; to explain the rules
> for treatment of transitivity. Krankor has suggested that
> perhaps TKD doesn't mention transitivity in the same way that
> it does not always distinguish between direct and indirect
> objects. While I have problems with this idea, my respect for
> Krankor forces me to at least LISTEN to it and try to see if I
> can make it fit into my understanding of the language.
IMHO, since the only definitions given are the undefined English
equivalents, for now we must translate a given verb using the
transitivity of the corresponding English verb, whether it is active,
passive or both. In cases where the Klingon verb is translated as "be
(insert verb)", doesn't that indicate that it is intended to be an
intransitive verb?
> > ... I find {-choH} and {-moH}
> > used together makes for very redundant constructions, because in the
> > description of {-moH} in TKD, the meaning of {-choH} is already strongly
> > implied: "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."
> > TKD 4.2.4 [emphasis added]. I keep it at, "in order that I cause it to be
> > hurtless", i.e., "to prevent my pain (for now and the rest of tonight)".
I find {-choH} and {-moH} to be very confusing. I have often wondered
why they are not both Type 3 suffixes. But since {-moH} is Type 4 (it is
the only Type 4, BTW), it appears to me that it was intended that they
could be used together.
Here are my questions:
1. Does {-choH} change transitive verbs into intransitive verbs?
maghwI'vaD Hich vIbaHta'. I fired my pistol at the traitor.
maghwI'vaD baHchoHta' HIchwIj. My pistol was fired at the traitor.
2. Does {-moH} change intransitive verbs into transitive verbs?
ror SajwIj. My pet is fat.
SajwIj vIrormoH. I fatten my pet.
(or even <SajwIj vIrorchoHmoH.>) I make my pet become fat.
> I wish to similarly provide little stories DURING MY COPIOUS
> FREE TIME to offer them examples of clean grammar and
> vocabulary and enough context to help them through the
> confusing parts.
I look forward to that.
>charghwI'
yoDtargh