tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 21 20:45:34 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: vay' and lu'
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 23:41:17 -0500
>Subject: Re: vay' and lu'
>Date: 94-12-21 13:06:39 EST
>From: [email protected] (William H. Martin)
>Ahhh. Always refreshing to face Guido in full argument mode.
>The flash of disruptors... The singing tones of sharpened steel
>as betleH strikes betleH...
mu' ral'e' jIHDaq baHta' batlh ghoHtaHbogh charghwI'. mu'yonmaj vIbechchu'
'ej vItIvmo' vItaH. qech DIghoHbogh SaHbe'ba' nuv law', 'a ram qar'a'. leS
yonmey 'utbe' qaSbe'moHlaH DaHjaj yonna' wIjeStaHbogh maH. 'ej DaH ghu'vammo'
'utlaw' qoj lI'bej mu'yonmaj.
>You later state that I said that {Xlu'} = {X vay'}. Please
>reread my statement.
Ok.
>> >This is a point of contention. If you believe that {Xlu'} = {X
>> >vay'}, then you are right...
I see. Sort of. So then, you may not be telling me or others that fact, but
it's just that you are saying that those who agree with it are not wrong. Or
something like that. Well, no matter, because I believe more or less that
{Xlu'} = {X vay'}, and therefore your statement declares you not to dispute
me on that point. This is important for the rest of our argument, so it's
good to get it out of the way.
>> I have already stated that I believe this to be irrelevant, since Okrand
put
>> plenty other things into Klingon grammar that have nothing to do with
English
>> grammar at all.
>This is not an argument. While it is true that Okrand added
>things that do not exist in English, he certainly didn't add
>EVERY IMAGINABLE GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION to the language. He
>needed to handle passive voice. He did not need to handle
>translating English sentences with indefinite objects the way
>he had to handle English sentences with indefinite subjects
>(i.e. passive voice).
Alright. I must confess to seeing your point here. It must be then that
Okrand simply neglected things like the instrumental because it was not
necessary for what he needed to translate. I think Holtej pointed that out.
(It was a mere accident that {-meH ... lo'} works as a nice instrumental.)
Anyways, this is not the main idea of the argument, so I will drop it, and
try to stay more focused. Concentrate! Ohmmmmmmmm!!!
>It may well be that when he faced the English passive voice, he
>saw a similarity to the impersonal. So? There is no more reason
>to presume that Okrand wanted {-lu'} to be EXACTLY LIKE the
>impersonal than it is to presume that it is to be EXACTLY LIKE
>the passive voice.
[...]
>> Why should it? {-lu'} is an impersonal in every grammatical and semantic
>> regard, and we can conclude that, since it works exactly like impersonals
in
>> other languages, and only bears some degree of resemblance to the passive
>> voice.
>Thank you for playing.
>"... since it works exactly like impersonals..." Oh? [Do you
>realize how difficult it is to raise eyebrows up onto a Klingon
>ridge?]
There is my point. {-lu'} is really an impersonal, and this can be observed
by comparing Okrand's description of it to its description in other languages
that have impersonals. Meanwhile, it is not passive voice. It only overlaps
the passive voice in some semantic respects, but grammatically it behaves
quite differently. I don't justify grammatical attribution of passive
characteristics to {-lu'}. That's why I disagree with you on the point that
{-lu'} shifts the semantic value of a type 2 verb suffix from subject to
object. This is a characteristic of passive voice. I do understand that you
make this attribution because of the canonical example {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'}
"it made him/her willing to die." But to that I will come in een momentje.
>> Any intransitive verb with {-lu'} must be interpreted as
>> "someone/something/anyone/anything Xs."
>I don't agree. I'd use "one Xs," which is not the same thing as
>ANY of the examples you cite. "One sits," is not at all the
>same thing as "someone sits," "something sits", "anyone sits,"
>or "anything sits." {Daqaw'lu'taH} means, "You will be
>remembered," or "One will remember you," but it does not mean,
>"Someone will remember you," "Something will remember you,"
>"Anyone will remember you," or "Anything will remember you."
TKD 4.2.5 describes {-lu'} to mean the subject is "someone/something", etc.,
and not "one". Nowhere in that section does it make a statement that {-lu'}
means "one". But the words themselves are unimportant, so let's not concern
ourselves with them. What's more important is that we understand that {-lu'}
just indicates indefinite subject, and so does {vay'}, when it's the subject.
There are of course different connotations for each one, but the basic
concept is the same.
I believe that {Xqanglu'} means "[indefinite subject] is willing to X,"
whereas you believe it means "[object] is willing to be Xed."
You believe what you believe because of one canonical example that could be
interpreted more than one way, i.e., it could be the {-moH} that's shifting
the meaning of {-qang} to the object. In fact, that is the very reason we
disagree.
However, to clarify my position, I believe what I believe for this reason:
There is only one way for either of us to interpret {ba'qanglu'}. So why
would the meaning of {-qang} be shifted just because a verb is transitive and
has an object to shift it to?
I can see your point, but I still don't agree. That's that.
>"Therefore" is one of those dangerous words, building logical
>constructions on premises that may well not be sound. Like
You're right. It usually goes against my principles to use words like that in
logical arguments. It just shows what happens to me when I get riled up about
something.
I've noticed that in a lot of our posts, we were both saying things to the
effect of, "You have no basis for this. You have no evidence for that. Blah
blah." The real truth is, neither of us has sufficient evidence to convince
the other.
>> It is a
>> contradiction of sorts. I'm not bashing you, I just wish to point out your
>> logical fallacy.
>I'm not bashing you, I just wish to point out your logical
>fallacy.
Actually you're doing both, and so am I. At the very least I am comforted by
the fact that we're not debating any trifling matter. It seems we've hit the
ceiling, as far as issues which we can resolve by canon is concerned. You
know, Glen truly has no basis for saying {ghoS} is intransitive, among other
things, but here's an issue that ends only at God's final spoken word.
>> >Of course, only Okrand knows for sure, and so far, he is not
>> talking.
>>
>> Only because no one's asked him.
>Only because no one can GET to him. His privacy is precious and
>he is a very busy man.
I have his phone number, altho Lawrence strongly 'suggested' that I check
with him before resorting to calling Okrand about anything. And besides, I
wouldn't want to drive him off. Lawrence, put this issue on the list of
questions for God. If some regular schedule of contacts hasn't been
established, when is someone planning to call him next?
It doesn't really matter for now.
>Right. So, I'm not really a linguistic-minded person, but you
>are, and therefore you have greater authority on these matters,
>so you are right and I'm wrong, but you aren't bashing me and
>you are not resenting it. wejpuH.
You interpreted me a bit more harshly than I intended. I mean simply that we
disagree on a lot of things basically because of our different backgrounds.
Neither is better than the other. Ok? No harm done on either side of the
fence?
>Hmmm. Should I say something crass like, "I'll put my B.A.
>against your as-yet-unearned High School diploma any day."?
>Naaaa.
SLAM! Guido's on the ground. He's not moving. It looks like a KO for
charghwI'. 123456789--- Wait, Guido's coming back.. It looks like.. could it
be???
No, let's not re-enact the Nick-Krankor scene so many months ago. You hit a
soft spot in me, but fortunately those parts heal fastest.
>I can only interpret this truely pathetic attempt to claim
>more authority than me as the last, desperate tool of a person
>who lacks any canon to back up his opinion. Hey. No bad
>feelings. I'm a Klingon, remember? I know my honor well. And it
>doesn't matter if I'm not a linguist if you have no basis for
>your argument. And so far as I can see, you don't.
Qu'vatlh! tIchbogh chalIj DaQeqHa'chu'. va mu'qaDqoqwIjmo' chonoDpu', 'ach
Hatlaw', tlhIngan Hol laHlIj vInuS 'e' vIHechbe'mo'! Hu''a' *Qanqor* Hay'
*nIchyon*, Holtejna' Dabe'mo' *Qanqor*. not qaSqa'jaj may'chaj ral.
tlhIngan Hol'a' wIlo'meH mIw vItIv law', pabDaj wIghoHmeH mIw vItIv puS,
maghojqu'mo' tlhIngan Hol wIlo'taHvIS.
>You are often very insightful. This specific episode is not one
>of your better examples.
'e' vItu'be' jIH. batlh mu'veSvaD maHay'. bIlughbe' 'ej jIlughbe' 'e' wIwuq
je. ghatlhlaHbe' wa' vuD, 'a wa' ghatlhmoHqu'laH "tlhIngan Hol 'oghwI''a'."
'ach ghatlhmoHpa' ghaH, ram ghu'. tlhIngan Hol wIlo'qu'chugh vaj maghojqu'.
>Just because translation forces you to face grammatical issues
>does not mean that the act of translating will consistently
>bring you to arrive at correct conclusions. Similarly, writing
>original works is no less valuable to the development of skills
>with a language than translating another person's words. Both
>are good. One does not have greater authority over the other.
loQ qarbe'. jIghojmeH mIwwIj vIqelDI' ngoDvam'e' vISovchoH: qechmey vay'
vI'oghDI' 'ej vIQummeH Hol vay' vISovchu'be'bogh vIlo'DI' vaj mughojmoHba'
mIwvam. 'ach qech vImughqu'meH mIw lI' law', qech vI'oghmeH mIw lI' puS, 'e'
vItu' jIH. chaq ghu' pIm Datu' SoH.
jIyonbe'. jIghojqangqu'. 'a not muyonmoHpu' SovwIj. vaj DaH jIngoj 'ej
jIngotlhlaw' jay'. baQa' reH qaS jIbechHa'meH wanI'.
ghuy'Do