tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 26 09:38:17 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: vay' and lu'

According to Marc Ruehlaender:
... 
> I hope you don't mind my interrupting your discussion, 

Correction: You are CONTINUING the discussion, not interrupting
it. qay'be'.

> me being a newbie on this list,...

So how else do you expect to STOP being a newbie? Such posts as
these are the life blood of this list.

> but I would like to make some
> points with regard to the shifting of the focus of suffixes:
> 
> As ghuyDo' already pointed out, in intransitive verbs, there is
> no Object to transfer the meaning of suffixes to, but also in
> some transitives there arise problems:
> 
> paq vIlaD 		I read the/a book
> paq vIlaDlu'		s.o reads the book/the book is read
> paq vIlaDqang		I am willing to read the book
> paq vIlaDqanglu'	s.o. is willing to read the book
> 			*the book is willing to be read

Simple error: On the second and fourth examples, you needed to
drop the {vI-}, though I presume you knew that and had your
attention drawn to some other part of your example.

As for content, I am one who believes that the correct
interpretation is "The book is willing to be read." It may
sound strange, but then so does {paq laDqanglu'}. Just because
"s.o. is willing to read the book," makes more sense in English
than "The book is willing to be read," that makes no difference
as to what {paq laDqanglu'} means.

Let's stay in English. "The book is willing to be read," makes
less sense than, "One is willing to read the book." So, if I
say to you, "The book is willing to be read," does that mean
that you will decide that what I meant was that someone was
willing to read the book? I think not. You don't change the
meaning of a collection of words because its content would make
more sense if the words had been different.

Meanwhile, this particular example is controversial. I am
stating my opinion. Guido#1 has the opposite opinion. Most
others are sitting back, either keeping their opinions somewhat
to themselves, or somewhat undecided in their opinions. Okrand
could settle it with a simple statement, but probably won't for
a long time, so we are stuck with a vague piece in the puzzle
of this language.

> Also there is evidence for -moH to switch the original
> subject to object while introducing a new subject:
> in 4.2.4.

More accurately, {-moH} adds a new verb in English, creating a
resulting transitive construction. It is useful for converting
intransitive verbs into transitive ones. Another controversial
point is how to handle {-moH} with transitive verbs. My
personal opinion is that {-moH} was not built for transitive
verbs, and until Okrand tells us that it can be used with
transitive verbs, and HOW it is to be used with transitive
verbs, we are better off not using it with transitive verbs.
There are other tools in the language that can convey the sense
that one agent causes another agent to perform an action on a
third being without using {-moH} on transitive verbs, so using
{-moH} on transitive verbs performs little utility at excessive
cost. I simply avoid it.

This is the way I handle Klingon in general. I try to use the
language's strongest tools to convey a given meaning, rather
than fixating on any given tool and becoming hell bent on using
it to convey a specific meaning.

> tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH	I form a boarding party
> *tIjwI'ghom vIchen	?

This gibberish exists because you have used a transitive
construction using an intransitive verb.

> chen tIjwI'ghom		the/a boarding party takes shape

> So one _might_ assume that
> 
> Heghqanglu'pu'		s.o. was willing to die
> HeghqangmoHpu'		he/she made him willing to die
> 
> whith the remark, that the 'it' in 4.2.10 is meant
> to represent s.o./s.th. (if you follow my line of
> argument)

Unfortunately, many would argue that the latter example means,
"He/she was willing to make him die," with equal conviction.
Count me among them. If Okrand intended that the latter were
interpreted as you have chosen to interpret it, then he would
indeed have had no reason for using {-lu'} in his example under
discussion. {-moH} alone would have been enough to transfer the
{-qang} to the object.

> In this context, am I right that 
> 
> Qong			he sleeps
> QongchoH		he's fallen asleep
> QongeghmoH		he makes himself fall asleep
> 			(maybe countin' the heads of the
> 			enemies as he chops them off...
> 			now HERE comes a candle... :-)

That's Qong'eghmoH. The omission of the apostrophe in the
beginning of TKD 4.2.1 can be confirmed as an error by checking
any example on the same page or in the tables on pages 164 and
167. Anyway, your translations are correct, though I don't
really see how this ties in with the context of your post.

Qongqang		He is willing to sleep.
Qonglu'			One sleeps.
Qongqanglu'		One is willing to sleep.
targh QongmoH HoD	The captain makes the targ sleep. [He
			put something in its food, maybe?]
targh QongqangmoH HoD	The captain is willing to make the targ
			sleep.
targh QongqangmoHlu'	The targ is willing to be caused to
			sleep.
targh QongqangmoH vay'	Someone is willing to cause the targ
			to sleep.

The crux of my argument is that with an indefinite subject,
there is nothing of substance on which to hang volition.
Meanwhile, the object is a specific entity, just waiting to
take on such an attribute. This is the only potential tool in
the language to hang this attribute on an object without very
convoluted constructions. Low cost, high gain.

Okay, new argument:

For those who believe that {Xlu'} = {X vay'}, why is it that
people DO translate {Daqaw'lu'taH} as "You will be remembered,"
but nobody seems to suggest that {Duqaw'taH vay'} would
normally be translated as "You will be remembered."? Everybody
seems to translate the latter as "Somebody will remember you."
Doesn't this hint to you that there may be a difference?

> Qapla'	
> 				Marc 'Doychlangan'

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level