tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 24 07:27:49 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: All Permutations...

markvo':

>>What word to use?  How about vIH:  to move.
>
>Not the best choice, as it turns out.  See, we are told in the definition
>that "vIH" means "to move" in the *intransitive* sense, i.e. to be in
>motion.  Some of your translations are predicated on the assumption that it
>can be transitive too, like English.

<much going on about the alleged intransitive nature of vIH omitted,
 (including more in a follow-up post) omitted>

mark, this long-winded diatribe on vIH is wholly inappropriate.

It is far from proven that vIH can't have the transitive meaning.
That is not to say that I think it can-- if I had to judge I'd agree
it probably can't.  This is not the point.  The point is <turn up the
volume to 11...>

THIS IS THE BEGINNERS CONVERSATION!!!!!

<turn the volume back down.>

Arguments predicated on subtle and disputible micro-readings of
Okrand's maybe-intent in vaguely-worded definitions are WHOLLY
INAPPROPRIATE for the beginners.  You know damn well that any group
of 3 or more advanced people (imagine you, me, and Glen, for
instance) could argue deep into the night about this.  At this point
it constitutes and advanced issue of style, not a fundamental
grammar error.  Anybody saying, say, chovIH, for "You move me"
cannot be told they are WRONG.  The dict provides simple "move" (as
opposed to "be in motion") in *both* directions, and this is enough
to provide for the possibility that "be in motion" is not a
clarification, it is an extension.

Like I said, *I* probably wouldn't say chovIH, I'd use chovIHmoH,
but that is not the point.  In particular, it requires getting the
basic 'feel' of the language (and the dictionary) in order to be
able to have *any* kind of intelligent insight into this issue,
which is something which, by definition, we have to presume the
beginners lack.

In short, you state the 'fact' of its intransitivity as if the
person should've known about it, if only they had been more careful
in looking up the word.  What's true is that any beginner would be
*completely* within their rights to look at it and say "Huh?  What
do you mean it can't be 'to move [a thing]'?  Where does it say
*that*???"

Because the answer is:  it doesn't.  The conclusion comes from
advanced analysis, and is far from air-tight.

                    --Krankor

Back to archive top level