tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 03 00:45:28 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: vIH

Guido writes:
>     Now, there does remain a controversy over {vIH} as to whether it, being
> intransitive, can be used adjectivally. My vote is NO, and I'll tell you
> why.

charghwI' responds:
     On this we totally agree, though for different reasons. The last
paragraph of the wordlist introduction of TKD on pages 78-79 give the
clearest description of which words can be used as adjectives (assuming that
the rest of them can't). I do not believe that being intransitive is enough.

     "For ease of reference, English entries in the English-Klingon section
of this dictionary begin with the word that the user would most likely be
looking for, even though this may at times be grammatically incorrect. [This
next sentence describes, I believe, {viH}'s entry as "move, be in motion"]
This first word is, when appropriate, followed by the correct translation. [I
do NOT believe that the next sentence applies to {vIH}, because then the
entry would have been "moving, be in motion".] For example, English
adjectives (e.g. *bold*) correspond to Klingon verbs, most accurately
translated using the English verb *to be* (e.g. *be bold*). All such words
are entered with the adjective first, followed by the accurate translation
(e.g. *bold, be bold*). [The next sentence, while not perfectly applying to
{vIH} perhaps comes more close in applying to this verb.] Similarly, when a
Klingon word is translated into an English phrase (e.g. *have a headache*),
the first word in the English entry is the key word of the phrase, followed
by the proper translation (e.g. *headache, have a headache)."

     I believe that "move" is the word that people will look for when they
mean "be in motion". It is the key word, even though the English word "move"
does not properly fit {vIH} because the English verb can be either transitive
or intransitive, while {vIH} is only intransitive, unless {-moH} is added. I
do not believe that {vIH} can be an adjective because "move" is not an
adjective. "Moving" might be considered an adjective, but {vIH} does not mean
"moving". It means "move, be in motion". I don't think this has anything to
do with locatives.

>      Actually, {vIH} is not really intransitive. It can take an object.
> Now, before anyone starts gnashing teeth and frothing at the mouth, let me
> explain myself. TKD, section 3.3.5, page 28 reads as follows: "There are a
> few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such as {ghoS} 
> /approach, proceed/. The locative suffix need not be used on nouns which
> are the objects of such verbs."
> It gives the examples {Duj ghoStaH} and {yuQ wIghoStaH}. Other verbs "whose
> meanings include locative notions" include {yIt}, {qet}, {puv}, {leng}, 
> among many others. {vIH} is a verb of motion. Doesn't it seem appropriate
> that a construction like {poS wIvIH} would mean "We move to the left
> (side)." Ere, {vIH} can take objects. So, hopefully that reduced some of
> the gnashing and frothing.

     Interesting point. Essentially, {vIH} can take indirect objects, but not
direct ones, though Klingon does not differentiate between them the way
English does. I do see a difference between {vIH} and the other locative
verbs. An infant lying on its back, squirming may be said to {vIH}, but it is
not necessarily moving along a path from origin to destination the way things
which walk, fly, etc. do. That's why I see it fitting into this class of
verbs only some of the time, and then a bit more tenuously. When the pathway
is the significant point of the motion, {ghoS} is probably a better choice.
> Verbs of motion don't need the locative suffix. That's probably why Okrand
> used {qetbogh loD} in the famous proverb rather than *{loD qet}. Because 
> {loD qet} would probably mean "He/She/It runs [to] the man."

> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos

     I suggest that he didn't use {loD qet} because {qet} cannot be used
adjectivally. {qet} means "run, jog", not "running, jogging". There is
language in TKD (see beginning of this post) spelling out the pattern of the
definitions of verbs that can be used adjectivally, and neither {vIH} nor
{qet} fit that pattern.


Back to archive top level