tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 26 08:43:08 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
charghwI' jIH 'ej vIjatlhpu':
...
> >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.
vaj jang ghuy'Do:
> Let's keep type 5's out of this, since they should have nothing to do with
> {-lu'} anyhow...
Fine. I only mentioned them because ~mark said that Type 2 and
Type 5 verb suffixes both assigned meaning to the subject of
the verb, and the {-moH} examples using Type 5 suffixes did not
transfer that meaning from the subject to the object. This was
the only canonical evidence I could fine in favor of either the
position that the shift was caused by either {-moH} or {-lu'}.
My own suspicion is that if I am wrong, the shift is not
because of either, but perhaps because Okrand didn't think that
much about it and {Heghqanglu'pu'} could assign volition to
either the subject or object. Meanwhile, that is very much
conditional on my being wrong, which I do not as yet believe.
> 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.
Untrue. It involves my knowledge that Okrand is a linguist and
if he wanted {-lu'} to be the impersonal, he would probably
have called it "impersonal" instead of "indefinite subject".
Since he didn't, there's a good chance that there is a
difference between the impersonal, which we both agree Okrand
certainly knows about, and the indefinite subject.
This could well be another example, like the tongue position of
{D} and {t}, of Okrand creating a series like "1, 2, and c".
Okrand may well have intentionally made {-lu'} exactly like the
impersonal, except that it transfers Type 2 suffix meanings to
the object instead of the subject. Hey, it's his language and
he can do anything with it he wants, both to my delight and
frustration.
> 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.
Agreed, unless it happens to be fun.
...
> 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.
Hmm. So how do you explain the shift in the meanings of the
verb prefixes on verbs with {-lu'}? The interpretation of
verbal prefixes on such verbs is radically different for
transitive verbs than intransitive verbs. {vIlegh} means "I see
it," but {vIleghlu'} means "One sees me," or "I am seen."
{legh} means "He sees it." {leghlu'} means, "One sees him," or
"He is seen." Meanwhile, {ba'} means "He sits," and {ba'lu'}
means "One sits." How can that be so? Clearly the null prefix
useage is changed between the transitive and intransitive verbs.
My point here is that there is already a clear difference
between transitive and intransitive verbs once the {-lu'}
suffix is added. It is right there, staring at you. So now,
with no canon to back you, you make a rather large logical leap
authorized by your profound authority in linguistics that there
is no "similar difference" [I enjoyed that term] in transitive
and intransitive verbs using {-qanglu'}.
Think about this, my friend.
> >> 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 point I just made. It may be a new point for you to
consider, and this argument is dearly in need of new points.
> >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.
Wait a minute. It looks like you lept right over the meat of my
argument without seeing it. If I MUST interpret transitives and
intransitives exactly alike, then {jIleghlu'} cannot possibly
mean "I am seen" or "One sees me." It should instead be
{muleghlu'}. But it isn't. The REASON it isn't is that a
transitive verb with {-lu'} is fundamentally different from an
intransitive verb with {-lu'}. The use of prefixes is
completely unrelated. In order to allow intransitive verbs with
{-lu'} to exist at all, you must abandon the way prefixes are
used on transitive verbs with {-lu'}. Similarly, it is quite
natural to abandon the way {-qanglu'} is used on transitive
verbs in order to allow intransitive verbs to exist with
{-qanglu'}. qechvam DayajlaH'a'?
...
> >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.
Your line of reasoning ignores the shift in the use of prefixes
between transitive and intransitive verbs using {-lu'}, arguing
that everything is exactly the same for transitive and
intransitive verbs with {-lu'}. On this point, you are clearly
wrong.
> 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.
This is why I brought up ~mark's earlier statement that both
Type 2 and Type 5 suffixes assign meaning to the subject. We do
have {wIchenmoHlaH} meaning "We can create it," instead of, "We
cause it to be able to form." Here {-moH} fails to move the
meaning of {-laH} from the subject to the object.
> 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.
So, are you willing to argue that the use of verbal prefixes
should not waffle between transitive and intransitive verbs
using {-lu'}? That is an argument I would be highly interested
in seeing spelled out. It should be quite intertaining.
> 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.
Because intransitive verbs with {-lu'} constitute an essential
anomoly to the way {-lu'} works, both for verbal prefixes and
for combining with {-qang}. That is as concise and clear as I
can put it.
> This is the main point of the argument.
jIQochbe'chu' va.
> All else is sidetracking, but there is a bit of mu'qaD left to deal with,
> involving retention of honor.
...
> >> 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 sure hope THAT doesn't happen again, especially at my
accidental instigation.
> 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.
choquvmoH. qatlho'neS.
> 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.
Arrogance can be either fun or a social problem with little
warning as to which it will be in any given setting. If it
could only be converted into confidence without insult, so many
arrogant people could enjoy so much more affection from
others... (sigh).
> 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.
This would also be true of any two people, linguists or not.
Holtej and Nick often disagree though they are at comparable
levels of linguistic background. Still, they respect each other
as peers, and neither of them tend to lean on their genuinely
superior linguistic authority when they disagree with me. Nick
was so taken with my attitude toward {-ghach} that he went back
and rewrote Shakespeare's sonnets. I'm still amazed that he
took my argument that seriously, even before Okrand spoke out,
pretty much confirming my uneasiness with the carefree use of
{-ghach}.
The main point of that is that Klingon is a very strange
language. It is not absolutely strange, as Nick often points
out. It could have been a lot stranger, though I think on the
strangeness quotient, given the timetable Okrand had for coming
up with a language, I don't think he did half bad. It wasn't
like he had this language laying around and when Paramount
wanted one, he just gave them what he had. He made this up from
scratch, patching together enough standard pieces to convey the
ideas the script needed conveyed, yet assembling things in a
way unusual enough that the result is interesting to linguists
as well as non-linguists who just enjoy having their minds
twisted enough to say things in Klingon.
In other words, even non-linguists seem to be able to have
insight into the language, I think in part because for some, it
is even easier to adapt the twists in normal patterns because
without a linguistic background, we are not even necessarily
aware that it breaks an established pattern. We just learn THIS
pattern.
But I digress...
> >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.
Good. But don't get TOO humble. That is at LEAST as much of a
social straight jacket as too much arrogance. Visit the
extremes, but live somewhere in the middle.
...
> >qabbe' ghu'vam. bIbech 'e' DatIvjaj 'ej bIyonbe'mo'
>
> bech 'e' tIvba' tlhIngan. 'a ghu'vam'e' vIDelbe'pu'.
> qaS jIbechHa'qu'meH wanI'.
nuqjatlh? Is this a dependent verb coming between the main verb
and its subject? Can we DO that? I kinda hope we can't.
> bechHa' 'e' tIvbe'. 'ej reH reH reH qaStaH jIbechHa'qu'meH wanI' jay'.
nuqjatlh? jIyajbe'.
> >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'.
pagh:
bIyonHa'taHmo' bInongqu'jaj. Hoch DaSovchu' 'e' bInongqu'mo'
DanejtaHjaj. 'ojqu'bogh tlhutlhwI' Quch law' 'ojbe'bogh
tlhutlhwI' Quch puS. bInejtaHvIS tlhutlhwI' 'oj DaDajaj.
> ghuy'Do
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |