tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 19 16:51:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} 'Smoking', in defense of my sig, and {QaQ}
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} 'Smoking', in defense of my sig, and {QaQ}
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:51:28 -0400
>From: [email protected]
>Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 01:03:37 -0400
>In a message dated 95-09-15 10:46:25 EDT, you write:
Who's "you"?
>>Which I don't like because it assumes {tlhuH} can take an object.
>>Now that I think of it, this sort of 'meaning' or 'verb transitivity'
>>question must get asked a lot... is there an FAQ or something for the
>>unclear parts of the dictionary?
>I am just going to throw in my own ideas here. I have seen lots of talk on
>this Klingon language listserv regarding transitivity/intransitivity. Some
>writers seem to think that, other than stative verbs which I know are only
>intransitive, certain verbs can only be transitive; certain verbs can only be
>intransitive. Other writers, including myself, put <-moH> on an apparently
>intransitive verb to change it to transitive.
With you so far.
>Now, I stick my neck out further: I feel that ALL verbs, other than stative
>verbs without <-moH>, can be either intransitive or transitive depending upon
>the usage of pronomial verb prefixes. If one uses <jI->, <bI->, <ma->, or
><Su->, the verb remains intransitive and does not take an object. If the
>verb uses the pronomial verb prefixes indicating an object, or if an object
>is present, the verb is transitive. To me, sticking my neck way out there
>for getting arguments, the stem verb can be either.
That's the way it works in English, to be sure, where the line between
transitive and intransitive is pretty blurred. One might hope it worked so
well and casually in Klingon, but it's unlikely. A language with a
specific transitivizer like "-moH" is not going to have much in the way of
verbs that swing both ways. It just doesn't make sense to have -moH if
you're going to say that "drown" means either to die by drowning or to kill
someone else like that. What's "drown"-moH for, then? And this is borne
out in the Klingon lexicon. We have "vem" meaning "to awaken (oneself),
cease sleeping," and "vemmoH" for "to wake someone else up."
Note that this is not quite your case of "jItlhuH" vs. "tlhIch vItlhuH".
That's closer to something attested in TKD with "Sop" and how you can use
it with zero-object prefixes. This presumes that "tlhuH" is a transitive
verb (really, that's how Okrand describes this effect, I think) and that
you can simply use it with zero-object prefixes to denote an elliptical
object. So "I breathe" is really "I breathe something, stuff in general,
but it's not really key what." Just like "maSop."
~mark