tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 26 06:18:43 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (n) orbit?
>Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 04:03:45 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "A.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
>Someone wrote:-
>> If we stretch just a little, we might try to use {bav} as an adjective.
>> {bav} = (v) orbit, be an orbit ** proposed extension to definition
>> Then {He bav} would do just fine without needing an entirely new word.
>Mark Shoulson replied:-
>> "to orbit" and "to be an orbit" are vastly different concepts. I see that
>> you're trying to get something like "bavbogh He". ...
>{Doy' puq} = "the child is tired", {puq Doy'} = "tired child". Thus,
>{bav Duj} = "the ship is in orbit", {Duj bav} = "ship which is in orbit".
>This reversing of word order between these 2 constructions, plus a fair amount
>of individual verbs that <can> be used as nouns, seems to allow complimentary
>ambiguous pairs like:-
>{qum qeS} = V N "the advice governs"
> N V "a government which is advising [someone]"
>{qeS qum} = V N "an advice which governs"
> N V "the government is advising [someone]"
This very construction was discussed quite a while ago on this list, when I
took the position that, in general, "N V" was equivalent to "Vbogh N", as
you seem to be here. This I based on the adjectival verb construction
you're mentioning. So I said that "qetbogh loD" could be "loD qet," etc.
However, Krankor disagreed. He pointed to the line in TKD which describes
the way these adjectival verbs work, on p.49:
A verb *expressing a state or quality* can be used immediately following
a noun to modify that noun. [emphasis added]
This led to a distinction between active verbs as stative verbs (and a
more-heat-than-light argument over how to determine them, whether or not it
mattered whether or not Okrand used the word "be" in its defintion). Now I
suppose it could be argued that the statement above is not restrictive, but
it certainly sounds it. The relative clause is not surrounded by commas
(which a nonrestrictive one would be, in American usage). Notably, most
(all?) cannon supports this distinction. Okrand himself uses the longer
-bogh construction in just about(?) all cases where the verb is not stative
(qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH *qetbogh loD*. matay'DI'
*vIHtaHbogh bIQ* rur mu'qaDmey.) The active/stative verb classification
and the result that active verbs can't be used adjectivally has become
accepted by most Klingon speakers that I know of.
~mark