tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 06 22:33:01 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Adjectives and vIH

>From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 04 Mar 1994 21:18:10 -0500 (EST)

>> 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:

More accurately, I'm claiming that some might interpret "qet" as "engaged
in running" and thus conclude it can be used adjectivally.  How do you get
from "run" to "enagged in running"?  Easy; that's what it means. OK, maybe
we don't express it that way in English much, and so it doesn't work for
you, but to say that that means it can't therefore mean it is just as
English-centric as to rely on whether or not Okrand decided to write "be"
in front of the translation.  I'm not saying it works that way for me, but
you have to realize that interpreting "vIH" as stative because it means "in
a state of moving" is just as much a judgement call on your part.  Just
because English considers "run" an act and "be in motion" a state doesn't
mean it's the only way to do things; you seemed to indicate as much
yourself.  Even in English we say "be running" more than "run" (they are
running, he is running, etc).  Again, it's all personal judgement.

>1. * yoq qet

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

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

Yes, I'd agree with you.  And I'd probably argue with someone who said
differently, but realizing all along that this is a judgement difference.

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


>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?

Well, we have "stuffed tobadge legs" in PK as "to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh",
and "jagh lucharghlu'bogh" for "vanquished [enemies]", so it can't be bad.




Back to archive top level