tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 08 04:57:05 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Transitivity
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Transitivity
- Date: Mon, 8 May 95 06:56:08 EST
'Iwvan wrote:
> [...] in Klingon it is determined that the noun phrase
> to the left of the verb {HoH}, whether or not it triggers agreement by
> means of a prefix (Standard Klingon) or not (Clipped Klingon), must
> refer to the victim, not the killer, the weapon, the time or the place.
> (In linguistic terms, {HoH} assigns a thematic role to its object.)
> So the definition of {HoH}, which the Klingon speaker has in his mind,
> contains an explicit reference to the object. In other words, {HoH}
> is a transitive verb.
The {HoH} which means "kill (someone/something)," the one that you are
using, is transitive, and its object is the victim. But there is an
english verb "kill" which is NOT transitive. The intransitive {HoH}
would simply mean "kill" and have no object.
Epiphany time, folks! {jIHoH} means "I kill." This also implies "I am a
killer." The difference between transitive and not can be transformed
into a difference between stative and active! {Sop} works the same way.
{jISop} "I eat" or "I am an eater." Maybe there are TWO verbs {HoH},
one active one meaning "cause (someone/something) to die," and another
stative one meaning "be a killer." The active {Sop} would mean "to
ingest (something)" and the stative {Sop} would mean "be an eater."
These newly identified meanings are a bit strange-sounding, but there's
no reason I can think of to dismiss them. For instance, we already have
{qay'} "be a problem." Perhaps all the other verbs with intransitive
translations are better classified as stative with an appropriate
rewording of the english. {Qong} seems to be a major offender in this
argument, and I hereby offer my solution: {Qong} REALLY means "be asleep."
-- ghunchu'wI'