tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 12 13:13:55 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD 3.4. -wI'
>Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 00:21:04 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: [email protected] (David Barron)
>At 05:57 PM 1/11/95 -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>>>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 14:31:55 -0500
>>>Originator: [email protected]
>>>From: [email protected] (David Barron)
>>
>>>~marc, charghwI',
>>>I would like your opinion on Prochel's proclaimation that -wI'
>>>can be added to a verb to mean "one who is" as in HeghwI' "dead man".
>>
>>>Do you feel this is acceptable tlhIngan Hol?
>>
>>I actually haven't fully read the article... mostly because I dread the
>>visceral reaction I'll have when I do (and I hope I can get a proper
>>response in a letter to Lawrence)... -wI' on nouns indeed!
>NOw, the article was not THAT bad. He *DID* site TKD to back up his argument.
>So please READ IT AND COMMENT!
OK, ok, I read it. And it's not *that* bad. I do find absolutely
laughable that Glen actually states at the end that "If it is not
specifically allowed and we have no examples of it, we have overstepped the
boundaries of good Klingon usage." OK, he *does* tend to follow that rule
himself, but only in loosest sense. That is, he places a *lot* of emphasis
on that second condition, essentially saying that if we can find *any*
examples of something he'd like, it *must* be a rule (neglecting the fact
that most natural languages seem to be more exception than rule).
I completely agree that "QIpwI' can mean "stupid person", but I don't buy
that bit that "beQwI'" can't mean "flat object." The active/stative
distinction in Klingon is mostly a red herring. OK, we do accept that only
stative ones are regularly used in the adjective position, but beyond that,
if they were so different, he'd have classified them differently and said
more about them. They're all *verbs*, for crying out loud. They should
have roughly the same rules. "-wI'" is plainly (to me) an agent suffix: it
indicates that we're talking about a noun (unspecified) which is the
subject of the verb to which it is attached. "So'" is "cloak", so "So'wI'"
is the the thing that is the subject of cloaking: a thing that cloaks. I
never noticed the distinction Glen points to in the translations of -wI',
but even so, it looks more like oversight than anything else. I, myself,
am pretty content that "beQwI'" can mean "flat object" as well (This is an
odd switch: I'm arguing to be more permissive than Glen; usually it's the
other way around). Hmmm... interesting example of "-wI'" that nobody
looked at, probably because it doesn't tell us anything. The noun "nub"
means "be suspect", and "nubwI'" is listed as meaning "predecessor." I'm
about 50-50 between declaring this a coincidence and talking about how
predecesssors are always suspect. If it's no coincidence, it would
constitute evidence of a stative verb with -wI', but that's reaching.
Besides, we have "pujwI'".
I do *NOT* at all buy that there is evidence of -wI' as a productive *noun*
suffix. I'm inclined to believe that the -wI' words Glen cites did in fact
have their origin in some form of the verb-suffix -wI' (either by slang or
hidden verbs), but there's *NO* evidence that we can make more of those
words ourselves. Had Okrand meant -wI' to be a noun suffix, he'd have said
so (and yet may... but hasn't so far). It's wishful thinking to decide
that you can throw -wI' on anything and make "object associated with..."
Okrand never allowed that.
I am pleased that Glen was smart enough not to permit *Xlu'wI'. Both
suffixes specify the subject of the verb, and do different things to it.
"...noblu'" means "giving happens, with the object as stated and the
subject indefinite." "nobwI'" means "giving happens, and the subject of
that giving is the noun under consideration now." How can "*noblu'wI'"
mean anything? "Giving happens, and we are considering the *indefinite*
subject of that giving"? Huh? If it's indefinite, why are we considering
it? It certainly can't mean "gift" (for which we have "nob"(n) anyway),
since that's the *object* of giving, not the subject. It's basically like
"le dunda fa zo'e" in Lojban; you're trying to fill one place with two
unconjoined objects.
>>
>>But I do agree that -wI' can go on *any* verb... even "stative" verbs.
>SO does this mean that langwI' can mean "the thin man"?
>It would be nice but I havent ever heard it argued.
>And the only positive argument for this in TKD is the list of suffixes in the
>back of the book.
How about pujwI'?
~mark