tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 04 08:20:28 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Adjectives and vIH

I wrote:

>>With regards to the discussion concerning adjectives & vIH:
>>We've all read the quote from TKD p. 78-79, but so far noone's
>>mentioned an equally-relevant quote, from p. 49:
>>"A verb expressing a state or quality..."
>>It seems to me that vIH does indeed express a state, the state 
>>of being in motion, and as such can be used in this way.  It's
>>not the inclusing of the English "to be" in the definition,
>>but the thematic nature of the verb itself.

and ~mark respondeth thus:

> Ah... well, my position on this has long been that it depends on the nature
> of the verb, whether or not it is stative or active in meaning, not in the
> translation that Okrand felt like giving it/was forced into giving it by
> the nature of English.


> However, this opens up the can of worms which you
> have demonstrated: different people will consider different verbs stative.
> "The state of being in motion" may not be any more "stative" to someone
> than "the state of being engaged in running" or "the state of being engaged
> in hitting one's head against a wall".

Are you suggesting that some might interpret qet 'run' as 'engaged in
running' if used adjectivally?  How do you get from 'run' to 'engaged
in running' ?  I would claim:

1. * yoq qet

when interpreted as "the running humanoid."  I'd prefer 

2. qetbogh yoq
   'the humanoid who runs/is running'

I know you didn't mean to single out 'run' above, but I just wanted
to make that point.


> The best you can do is to
> follow your own and either accept others' usages or or note that they don't
> align with yours and leave it at that.  If the other person rethinks it and
> decides you're right, fine.  Otherwise, I don't think anyone has a monopoly
> on judging which verbs are "stative in nature".  

I see what you mean, but I can't find any clear examples of verb which
are ambiguous between stative and non-stative.  So, I'd claim:

     Stative             Non-Stative
     buD   'be lazy'     vuS    'limit' 
     QeH   'be mad'      Hech   'intend'

Maybe I can't see them because I don't want to.  {{;|

For those non-statives, I'd suggest the strategy I discussed in 
another message of today, make it a relative clause.  So, to say 
"limited food" for example,

3.  vuSlu'bogh Soj

Unfortunately, I have no sense of how stylistically correct this is.  
Where's our native speaker?



Back to archive top level