tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 26 21:13:14 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: vay' and lu'
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 00:08:55 -0500
>Subject: Re: vay' and lu'
>Date: 94-12-26 12:53:30 EST
>From: [email protected] (William H. Martin)
>> 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.
Ok. That makes sense. I see where you come from on this, especially in your
interpretation of {leghlu'}. I personally would assume (without proper
context) that it meant "one sees". No object is specified, but a subject is,
even tho it happens to indefinite. And we know that transitive verbs can have
unspecified objects from TKD (4.1.1).
>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.
I have. Read on:
[...]
>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'?
vIyaj; 'ej chay' vIQoch 'e' vIDel:
I interpret {vIleghlu'} as "one sees me". I see the prefix flop as giving no
justification to translate it into English passive all the time. I see the
difference between the uses of the null prefix on trans. and intrans. verbs
as being much more vague than you see it. This is not meant to persuade you,
since both of us have been shouting that the other is wrong on a point that
the other always retaliates on, saying that the other wasn't right in
claiming the other thought that way, and so forth. All this nonsense was
supposed to mean is that our opinions seem divergent over something that
neither of us have pinpointed quite yet. But we shall see.
>..
>> >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.
No, my line of reasoning is thus:
{leghlu'} = "one sees" (unless context or explicit word specifies object, in
which case it would be "one sees him/her/it")
{vIleghlu'} = "one sees me"
{Daleghlu'} = "one sees you"
{leghqanglu'} = "one is willing to see"
{vIleghqanglu'} = "one is willing to see me"
etc.
If we diverge from this line of reasoning, it stems most likely from our
different interpretations of the first example.
[...]
>> 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.
I can see this is leading us in a completely new argumentative direction,
altho I have no opposition, since it is a relevant new direction.
You seem to be saying that because {vIleghlu'} has a prefix that indicates a
{jIH} subject and because {-qang} ascribes volition to the subject, then
{vIleghqanglu'} should ascribe volition to the {jIH}. I disagree with this
for the following reason. "Subject" and "object" are grammatical terms, and
since volition is a semantic concept, I'll use the terms "agent" and
"patient", since they're semantic terms. In {vIleghlu'} the patient is {jIH}.
I see {-qang} as ascribing volition of willingness to the agent, which in
this case is indicated to be indefinite by {-lu'}. The prefix flop does not
make any change of agent and patient, and {-qang} should ascribe volition to
the agent, not necessarily the subject indicated in the prefix, since the use
of {-lu'} turns the subject indicated by the prefix into the patient rather
than the agent. And the {jIH} remains in the object syntactic position to
boot. I must look at any type 2 suffix used in such a situation as ascribing
volition to the agent, which in this case is indefinite. In case that was too
opaque, I'll summarize to say that I believe {-qang} in {[jIH] vIleghqanglu'}
ascribes volition to the agent, which is indefinite, and not the {jIH}
despite the fact that the prefix says it's the subject, because a) it is
syntactically an object, and b) it is the patient, to which volition is not
really appropriately ascribed. I'm still rather opaque, tho.
jabbI'ID latlhDaq ghItlh charghwI':
>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.
Actually, it *would* make a difference, because {paq} would not normally have
any volition associated with it unless we're given one helluva good
contextual indication.
>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.
You're right. In this case, the volition is adrift and the whole sentence
could be translated, "Willingly, s.o. would read the book." However, this is
not always the case. Take {Sajvetlh HoHruplu'} for example. Its two possible
interpretations are both quite pragmatic and logical, but are extremely
diverse. "That pet is ready to get killed" could be said of some melancholy
animal that's lost its zest for life and is ready to be ripped to shreads by
some indefinite ravinous fiend, perhaps so that it can join a dead master in
the Black Fleet. However, the other meaning, "Someone's ready to kill that
pet" could be said about the pet in general, when it causes some disturbance,
or does some obscene pet thing, or what not: {lojpu'DI' Soj, Saj
HoHrupchoHlu'} does *not* have to imply the pet's readiness to sacrifice
itself for the indefinite starving agent, if context doesn't imply it
already.
>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.
Most likely, no one else cares that much about it. After much consideration,
I would not be dissatisfied with ~mark's contention that {-lu'} used with a
type 2 could be interpreted more than one way, ***depending on CONTEXT***,
just as is the case with type 2's and {-moH}. I'm not dissatisfied because I
realize that Calvin & Hobbes was wrong in saying, "A good compromise leaves
everybody unhappy." That phrase applies mainly to money.
Context is that binding force that dictates that no clause shall be severed
from its sentence, no sentence from its paragraph, etc. To see what I mean,
open up any book that you've never read to a random page, start with any
random word reading for a given amount of time, then stop and ask yourself,
what the hell did that mean?
We can handle duel interpretations with context sorting things out. At least
I can.
[...]
>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).
ghu'wIj Dayajchu'. qar mu'lIj. naDmey vInobchu'be' 'ej vIHevchu'be'.
Qu'vatlh. 'ach choDelmeH naDHeylIj vInaDqu'.
>> 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}.
It really has nothing to do with background, interest, and experience, but
rather it shows that I'm a brat in more cases than I can afford.
>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.
I try, but my ball keeps rolling away from the center of the lane. But it's
ok, because life in the gutter isn't so bad, once you stop caring so much
about what other people think, not like that's a good thing, tho. [DaH puqna'
vIDa]
>nuqjatlh? Is this a dependent verb coming between the main verb
>and its subject? Can we DO that? I kinda hope we can't.
See TKD 6.2.4. The {-meH} clause modifies the noun here: "events for me to
suffer inappropriately."
>> >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.
'ach DIvI' Holvo' Damughta'DI', wej mu'tlhegh lutu'lu'. wa' mu'tlhegh moj wa'
mu'tlhegh, mughlu'DI', 'e' vIHarqu' jIH.
In other words, parallelism is a good thing.
>> ghuy'Do
>charghwI'
ghuy'Do.