tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 24 11:32:46 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} `Smoking`, in defe
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} `Smoking`, in defe
- Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 11:32:46 -0400
>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:25:54 -0700
>From: David Barron <[email protected]>
> k > object
> k > is present, the verb is transitive. To me, sticking my neck way out
> k > there
> k > for getting arguments, the stem verb can be either.
>Its times like these I wish Krankor was back on the list.
>He has presented some pretty persuasive arguments supposting this
>theory, none of which I can think of right now.
>In general Krankor and I both like to believe tlhIngan Hol is
>much more malable than one might first think.
I recall these discussions with Krankor, and I don't think he and I are as
far apart as it seems. Krankor's standpoint was that verbs that seem
intransitive in English aren't necessarily so in Klingon; it's just not
necessarily clear what their objects are. This I can more or less agree
with. Of course, the problem is disagreement over exactly how and where to
apply this thesis. What seems a reasonable object to me may not be to
you. Note an example I remember talking about here: I remember saying that
"jeS" should be considered transitive in Klingon, since it really does take
an object, it's just that for some reason in English we say that object
governed by the preposition "in." I think, though, that there are ways in
which this shouldn't be extended. For example, in English we frequently
have a verb that's transitive and intransitive for which the transitive use
it the causative of the intransitive (e.g. "drown." A person can drown,
which means the person dies due to lungs filling with water, or you can
drown someone else, which means that you *cause* that person's death due to
water-filled lungs). This kind of extension does NOT make sense to me in
Klingon, since if it did, what's the use of -moH? A language with -moH (or
analogous construction) would not blur its transitivity in this fashion.
Note, too, that this construction involves a change in meaning. The
transitive/causative form doesn't have the subject doing anything like what
it does in the intransitive form. Adding an object should mean just that:
adding an object, not changing the root meaning.
~mark