tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 22 21:35:07 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: vay' and lu'
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 00:34:23 -0500
>Subject: Re: vay' and lu'
>Date: 94-12-22 17:18:05 EST
>From: [email protected] (William H. Martin)
>> 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.
lu', mumISmoHlaw'mo' <yon> <yol> je, ghItlhwIjDaq <yon> tamnIS <yol>. mIS'a'
qaSmoH QaghHom. ghu'vammo' yepnISlu'.
>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.
For all practical purposes, this is true. But they have different
connotations, I realize. At any rate, debating this point simply detracts
from the main argument. Let us lay this to rest. {Xlu'} has the same basic
underlying meaning of {X vay'}, but doesn't exactly convey the same meaning.
I hope we need no longer dispute this.
>> 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.
wejpuH, SunwIj DanuSlaw' 'e' vInuS je. Hoch'e' loQ DaQochbogh pe'vIl
DaghoHrup. qech'a''e' wIghoHtaHbogh yIbuS, qechHom ram DaqImHa'taHvIS.
>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.
Let's keep type 5's out of this, since they should have nothing to do with
{-lu'} anyhow. And also the precise nature of {-lu'} is irrelevant. We both
should agree on the triviality of *that*. I could argue the nature {-lu'}
with you as well, but our understandings of its nature are irrelevant because
they will not really affect how we use it. Also, arguing this would detract
from the main point at hand, which involves the use of {-lu'} with a type 2
suffix, and because this *would* affect our usages, it *is* relevant, as far
as I'm concerned. Your contention that {-lu'} is not either passive voice or
impersonal displays your lack of knowledge of the nature of an impersonal.
Altho this is again irrelevant because we are not concerned with the nature
of {-lu'} as compared with other languages. Let us remain focused.
Sidetracking is pointless.
>> 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.
I am so much less concerned with your weakly based assumption that the
meaning of {-qang} transfers to the object when used with {-lu'} only when
the verb is transitive coming from one canonical example that could be
interpreted another way and more concerned with looking at the grammatical
system more objectively.
I will restate to clarify: You contend that {Xqanglu'} means "be willing to
be Xed," but since intransitive verbs can be used with {-lu'}, your
contention only becomes valid for transitive verbs. I don't believe that
{-qanglu'} should waffle in meaning that way. In other words, I think that
you originally took {Xqanglu'} to mean "be willing to be Xed" in all cases,
only later to recall that intransitives could be used for X. I believe that
{Xqanglu'} should have a single meaning "[indefinite subject] is willing to
X" for both transitives and intransitives. You obviously believe otherwise,
and if I'm incorrect in that assumption then let me know, because I seem to
be notorious for misinterpreting you.
>> 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.
Exactly. And similarly, when you came to the conclusion that {Xqanglu'} means
"be willing to be Xed," you neglected to consider how this would work with
intransitives. When X is intransitive then {Xqanglu'} *must* be interpreted
"[indefinite subject] is willing to X" since there is no object to which the
volitional meaning of {-qang} can be shifted. I do not believe that the
meaning of {-qanglu'} should change with the transitivity of the verb.
>> 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.
You have one canonical example which does not support your claim
definitively. I have my line of reasoning which counters your indefinitively
supported claim, saying that {-qanglu'} should not waffle back and forth
between meanings depending on the transitivity of the verb. It is entirely
presumptuous to claim that {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} could tell us anything, since
it is equally possible that {-moH} is transfering the volition of {-qang} to
the object. You cannot counter this by pointing out a lack in canon of this
phenomenon, because no other uses of a type 2 and {-moH} exist that could
prove it either way. In fact if we were to question whether {HeghqangmoH}
means "be willing to cause to die" or "cause to be willing to die," we would
find no canon supporting either. All we have is this one example which uses
{-lu'} and {-moH}, both of which are equally likely to do the shifting of the
volition of {-qang} to the object. Neither you nor I have the license to
claim it either way. Altho on my side of the argument is the reasoning that
the meaning of {-qanglu'} should not waffle, i.e., it should not be one thing
for transitives and another for intransitives. According to you, it should
waffle, because you say that {-lu'} shifts the volition of {-qang} to the
object, but this cannot occur with intransitive verbs, and so you are left to
explain to me why you believe that {-qanglu'} has the duel meaning you claim
it has.
This is the main point of the argument.
All else is sidetracking, but there is a bit of mu'qaD left to deal with,
involving retention of honor.
>> >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.
My gripe of your non-linguistic-mindedness and eventual apology was not meant
to compromise my position for your Insecurity-qoq, but rather to disclaim my
Arrogance-Hey. As selfish and egocentric as that sounds, it is irrelevant.
Arrogance comes with being what I am... (and the last time I said that, I
withdrew from the list for over a month). I enjoy this particular argument,
despite its numerous offshoots, because you are able to keep a clear-cut
policy, rather than quibbling aimlessly and constantly distorting your points
to do nothing more than remain in contradiction, even if it means eventually
losing all logical lines of reason within the debate, like some people I
know. You prove yourself an honorable opponent. Meanwhile, this debate has
brought out many a bad quality in me. I should restate my point that our
divergent backgrounds have led us to different conclusions. My exposure to
linguistic studies is likely to produce an arrogance in me that is more often
than not (at my age and level of experience) inappropriate. In short, I have
a lot to learn.
Contrarily, my outlook on language in general is bound to be different from
yours. This is on account of interests and background and nothing more.
>maj. My intent was to wrestle, jokingly, not to do real damage.
>Hey, I DID miss all the vital organs, right?
My diagnostic results indicate that you have done nothing more than renewed a
humility in me. 'a jeQnISlu', mIybe'lu'taHvIS neH.
>> jIngotlhlaw' jay'. baQa' reH qaS jIbechHa'meH wanI'.
>>
>> ghuy'Do
>qabbe' ghu'vam. bIbech 'e' DatIvjaj 'ej bIyonbe'mo'
bech 'e' tIvba' tlhIngan. 'a ghu'vam'e' vIDelbe'pu'. qaS jIbechHa'qu'meH
wanI'. bechHa' 'e' tIvbe'. 'ej reH reH reH qaStaH jIbechHa'qu'meH wanI' jay'.
>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.
I might have prefered this last sentence in Klingon.
bItlhutlh neH 'a bItlhutlh bI'ojqu'taHvIS neH 'e' DatIvmeH, pIj nom bIHaDchu'
'e' tungHa'jaj Duyonbe'bogh DotlhlIj nong'e'.
ghuy'Do