tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 15 22:20:10 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

this'n'that

>From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:13:02 -0700


[ regarding the stative vs active verb/adjective discussion ]

>Yep, again agreement.  Gee it's nice when I don't have to say a word
>and people come around to my way of thinking. {{:-)  Seriously, this
>whole issue is one that seems to require a long journey.  You are
>the third person I know of (including myself, by the way) who has
>changed opinion on this topic after reflection and experience.  I
>originally balked at the idea that the adjectival verbs would be a
>special class, because it seemed inelegant, but after a while I had
>to admit it was so.

>At this point, I'm still open to the possibility that there may
>exist members of this class that don't actually have "be" in their
>definition.  But the burden of proof lies with those who claim for
>them.  I remain unconvinced that ba' or tlha' cut it.

I suppose I have to weigh in around here too.  Krankor's position is sort
of close to mine.  I do not buy that so-called adjectival verbs are a
completely different class from the rest of the verbal world; I would
definitely approve of tInwI'. It's a perfectly legal and sensible usage of
the "-wI'" suffix.  In Klingon grammar, being big *IS* something one
"does".  I'm not trying to make comments about their perspectives on the
world, but it's a verb, after all.  However, given Okrand's specification
of when verbs can be used following nouns as adjectives, I must at least
tentatively concede that there is some distinction drawn among verbs: some
can be used this way, and some can't (unless Okrand clarifies his
statement).  Which ones?  Ah, there's the rub.  All Okrand says is they are
verbs expressing a state or quality, and that's a subjective criterion.  It
*is* purely an accident of the English language that some words require the
use of "to be" in their translations and some don't; it is unwise to assume
that English makes any more sense in this regard than anything else.  So
yes, it is probably not a good idea to assume that the set of permitted
adjectival verbs and the set of verbs which have "be" in their translations
must necessarily be the same.  There are likely other verbs which can be
used adjectivally (to wit, the CK line about Ha'DIbaHmey meQ for "burnt
animals" (which incidentally shows that meQ at least can be used
intransitively, and also is odd that it would seem to mean "burning", tho
"meQtaH" would be better)), and it is even possible that some "be" verbs
don't make sense as adjectives in Klingon.  So the best one can do is to
follow one's instincts (Duj yIvoqtaH) and work from there: if it feels
sufficiently adjectival, perhaps you can do it.  But be prepared to defend
yourself against someone whose Duj does not agree with yours.  There is
room for disagreement.  At this point, absent petter input, a good
heuristic might be to rely on the presence/absence of "to be" in the
definitions.  Remember what a heuristic is: it's an algorithm that isn't
always right.  So this method may make some mistakes, you may want to
augment it with your instincts and feelings, but it's probably a good
start.

~mark

Back to archive top level