tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 22 11:04:55 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
*ghuIDo' wa'*,
//yon// 'oH nuq'e'? mutlheghlIjDaq DIp Da 'oH. mu'ghomwIjDaq
vItu'laHbe'. //yon// vIyajbe'mo' jabbI'IDlIj vIyajchu'be'.
According to [email protected]:
>
> >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'.
gholwI' quv SoHneS 'ej jupna'wI' SoHneS. batlh maghoHchuq.
> 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.
qechmeyvam vIyajlaHpa' //yon// //mu'yonmaj// je vIyajnIS.
HIQIj. qayajchu' vIneH.
> >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.
ghobe'. rap //Xlu'// //X vay'// je 'e' DaHarchugh vaj bIlugh
'e' DaHar neH vIjatlhpu'. not bIlugh vIjatlh.
You made a statement based upon {Xlu'} = {X vay'} and I
responded that if you believe this premise, then you believe
that the statement based upon that premise is correct. I never
said that the premise is correct. I personally think the
premise is incorrect. My entire argument is based upon that
premise being questionable at best. Yours is based upon it
being bedrock and unquestionable.
That is why I offered it as a conditional instead of merely as a
statement. You've taken a logical assumption and presumptively
taken it to be true. The premise has yet to be established as
true.
> >> 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!!!
maj. Dubjaj SunlIj.
...
> 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.
I should hope that textbooks describing impersonals in other
languages would be more comprehensive in their descriptions
than Okrand was in describing {-lu'}. My point is that you have
little more to base your presumption that an indefinite subject
is exactly like an impersonal than I have to say that an
indefinite subject is exactly like the passive voice.
Meanwhile, I do not claim that it is exactly like a passive
voice. I see it as likely to be something somewhere between an
impersonal and a passive voice, using what little canon we have
to draw a line WHERE IT APPARENTLY EXISTS IN KLINGON, instead
of drawing it where it exists in linguistic texts describing
other languages.
You keep repeating the false presumption that I think {-lu'} is
exactly like the passive voice, while all I am really saying is
that, based upon our only canon example, traits normally
attributed to the subject through type 2 and 5 verbal suffixes
seem to be transferred to the object when {-lu'} is present.
This is indeed more like the passive voice than like an
impersonal, but I do not think this is significant because what
we are REALLY discussing is what it is like IN KLINGON. The
Klingon language doesn't care about impersonals OR passive
voice. It has neither. Instead, it has an indefinite subject,
which shares SOME characteristics of impersonals in some
languages and the passive voice in English. It is most likely
not identical to either.
Meanwhile, I do describe you as saying that the Klingon
indefinite subject is exactly like the impersonal in other
languages because, well that's precisely what you claim. Since
you take that presumptive stance, you choose to inaccurately
describe my position as making a variation on the error that
you are most likely making, which is to falsely generalize
about a detail of Klingon by equating it to a trait of another
language when the real relationship to the generality is weaker
than an equivalence. Yes, the indefinite subject is a lot like
the impersonal. It is also a lot like the passive voice. It is
almost certainly not identical to either. Our point of
contention is over one aspect of the indefinite subject in
which canon apparently shows that the indefinite subject acts
more like passive voice than like impersonal. In other aspects,
the reverse may be true.
In other words, is a horse more like a dog or a cow? Well,
horses and cows have hooves, while dogs don't, but dogs and
horses run fast, while cows tend to be rather sluggish, so
claiming that a horse is exactly like a cow or a dog is, well,
wrong. Meanwhile, claiming that since horses and cows have
hooves and dogs don't and since cows are sluggish, horses
OBVIOUSLY must be very slow... well... if you take the
statement that horses and cows have hooves BECAUSE THEY ARE
IDENTICAL CREATURES to be true, then the whole argument is
flawlessly logical. The premise is wrong, so the statement is
wrong, but the argument is not logically flawed.
Similarly, your statement that {-lu'} can't possibly transfer
the sense of volition carried by {-qang} to the object instead
of the normal assignment to the subject BECAUSE THE INDEFINITE
SUBJECT IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS THE IMPERSONAL, AND THE
IMPERSONAL WOULDN'T DO THAT, well, you have a flawlessly
logical argument based upon a bad premise. HeghqangmoHlu'pu'.
Hey, look! There goes a horse, running across the field. It
sure doesn't seem to be acting like a cow...
So now, you argue that I am stupidly presuming that a horse is
exactly like a dog because I say that horses run fast. Instead,
you insist that the truth of the matter is that horses are
exactly like cows.
Have I made my point yet?
> 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.
I can barely contain myself.
> >> 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.
Good point. Upon rereading it, this really sounds like the
indefinite subject results in a meaning which is difficult to
translate into English and is most accurately related in a
natural English manner as the passive voice, though it is not
really identical to the passive voice. I don't think there is
evidence here to presume that it is exactly like the
impersonal. Otherwise, why wouldn't Okrand just call it
"impersonal" instead of inventing "indefinite subject"?
> I believe that {Xqanglu'} means "[indefinite subject] is willing to X,"
> whereas you believe it means "[object] is willing to be Xed."
Exactly. Meanwhile, I have HeghqangmoHlu'pu' to back up my
belief, and you have nothing in canon to back up yours. Mine is
a weak argument. Yours is a nonargument.
> 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.
We have other examples of {-moH} which do not transfer the
meaning of subject-attached attributes of verbs. We have no
examples of {-lu'} failing to transfer these subject-attached
attributes of verbs.
> 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?
This is the same kind of argument I LOST concerning the
acceptability of {-lu'} on intransitive verbs in the first
place. As I argued, since all the examples in TKD 4.2.5 involve
the reversal of subject and object roles in the verb's prefix,
and since there are no prefixes indicating "no subject", it is
therefore improper to use it with a verb with no object because
it is impossible to reverse the subject-object role of a prefix
with no object.
It was a great argument until Krankor pointed out the example
in the Useful Klingon Expressions in the Appendix which
included {ba'lu'}. Obviously, I was wrong. While 4.2.5 says
nothing about intransitive verbs with {-lu'}, such useage does
exist and must be deciphered from the example. It is the ONLY
example using {-lu'} on an intransitive verb, just like
{HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} is the only example of {-qang} combining
with {-lu'}. We must make adjustments in our understanding of
the language through the grammatical section to justify the
examples whenever possible.
There are times when we need to reject examples in canon. We
must, for example, correct for typographical errors in the "Is
this seat taken?" example. We must reject the use of {je}
BETWEEN nouns in ST5. Meanwhile, other examples that might be
rejected because they don't fit what we would expect from the
description of the grammatical rules must instead be accepted,
with our understanding of the rules modified to include them.
Thus, we must accept that {-lu'} can be used on intransitive
verbs, even though 4.2.5 fails to tell us so, and I similarly
believe that the willingness implied by {-qang} is transferred
by {-lu'} to the object instead of the subject, even though
4.2.5 fails to tell us so.
> 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.
[charghwI' smiles broadly, stroking his thumb across the pointy
hilt of his taj.]
> 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.
I have little evidence. You have none.
> >> 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.
That was my point, though I was trying to strike you with the
flat of my blade.
> 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.
I've already tried. He has an answering machine and he didn't
return my calls. This successfully conveyed that he is not open
to conversations with those with whom he has not been properly
introduced.
> 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 seems oddly like it is an issue of political clout. Lawrence
can speak to him, though he admits he doesn't really speak
Klingon. The rest of us can't talk to him. Maybe ~mark will be
able to soon, but not yet. Apparently, those two are cooler than
those less significant to the movement, like myself, so I, like
everyone else here, must wait for those with higher coolness
factors to talk with him, hoping that maybe they will remember
to bring up issues I'd really like clarified, on the condition
that they, with their heightened coolness, decide that my
priorities sufficiently match their priorities.
Sorry for whining. We are lucky to have him talk to any of us
at all. The exclusive nature of the communication sometimes
makes it feel like the resource of talking to Okrand is a
treasure hoarded as much as utilized, with little sensitivity
to what it feels like to be someone actively using a language
without access to the only true authority to its proper useage.
> 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?
No harm done or intended. I am not so insecure as to be easily
wounded by such an insult, intended or accidental. Arrogance is
a feature of your personality. Many of my best friends are
openly arrogant. I'll still call you on it when it gets that
thick, but it does not, at this time, bother me all that much.
> >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.
maj. My intent was to wrestle, jokingly, not to do real damage.
Hey, I DID miss all the vital organs, right?
> >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.
jIQochbe'. jupna' maH. qa'oy' vIneHbe'. [Much.]
> tlhIngan Hol'a' wIlo'meH mIw vItIv law', pabDaj wIghoHmeH mIw vItIv puS,
> maghojqu'mo' tlhIngan Hol wIlo'taHvIS.
QaQ qechlIj.
> >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'.
HIja'. jIQochbe'.
> >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.
jIghItlh vIneHbej. jImugh vIneHbejbe'. jIghojlaHpa' mIw
vIneHnIS.
> jIyonbe'. jIghojqangqu'. 'a not muyonmoHpu' SovwIj. vaj DaH jIngoj 'ej
> jIngotlhlaw' jay'. baQa' reH qaS jIbechHa'meH wanI'.
>
> ghuy'Do
qabbe' ghu'vam. bIbech 'e' DatIvjaj 'ej bIyonbe'mo'
bIQubchu'jaj. May your discontent drive your passions to visit
perfect insight briefly and repeatedly so you may enjoy
drinking while thirsty instead of merely drinking.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |