tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 15:33:06 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jaH
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jaH
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:31:23 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
charghwI':
> >It's not nice to imply quotation when one is not quoting
> >anything. I believe that the badly paraphrased statement is:
> >"There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions,
> >such as {ghoS} /approach, proceed/. The locative suffix need not
> >be used on nouns which are the objects of such verbs."
>
> >I don't see "other directional verbs" and "verbs whose meanings
> >include locative notions" as being different descriptions of the
> >same set of words.
Nick:
> I think you've just dug your own grave. Locative is, if anything, a more
> general notion than directional; if we don't assume he means just
> 'directional' here, but all locatives, stative and directional, then he may
> well be licencing "quS vIba'" --- something for which we have no precedent
> whatsoever. For directionals, at least, we have the precedent of ghoS.
This is weak, Nick. Just because you can apply a locative to a
verb, that does not mean that the verb includes locative
notions. "Orbit" implies a locative notion. "Sit" does not. Both
can have locative associations, but the difference in English
between "orbit" and "sit" strike me as quite similar to the
difference between {ghoS} and {jaH}. You can say, "Earth orbits
around the sun," but that just sounds like an awkward way to
say, "Earth orbits the Sun." The object is more accurately a
locative. Meanwhile, saying, "I sit in the chair," is not at all
like "I sit the chair." This is the difference between a verb
which includes a locative notion and one which does not.
This is exactly like what Okrand explains when he says that you
can say {DujDaq ghoStaH}, but it is somewhat redundant (like
"orbit around"), while the better way to say this is {Duj
ghoStaH}. See?
...
> So, it's natural for 'el to take a direct object, because it's associated
> with an object as location, and it's natural for ghoS, but it's not natural
> for jaH, because the thing you go to is... not a location? And the
> difference between jaH and ghoS is that what you approach... is a location?
Yep. You go TO an object. You don't just go an object. That's
the difference, and Okrand does use prepositions in his
definitions if they are implied in the verb. {jaH} does not mean
"go to". It just means "go". This is similar to the English
words "go" vs. "approach". You don't go something. You go TO
something. You don't approach TO something. You approach
something.
> I'm sorry, charghwI', but this is sophistry. The simple fact is, the reason
> you consider it natural for 'el to take a direct object is because that's
> what English happens to do. There is nothing inherent in the semantics of
> 'el to differentiate it from jaH. The things gone to in both cases are
> Goals, in case grammar terms. What cases they turn up in in natural
> languages --- datives, accusatives, direct objects, indirect objects --- is,
> if not arbitrary, at the least open to choice.
So, you figure you can ignore the actual wording of the
definitions of the words, eh? Just throw in a few prepositions
wherever you consider them to be convenient. Why bother with
Type 5 noun suffixes AT ALL? Just imply that any verb indicating
any kind of motion or direction or location can be stretched to
take an object which is locative.
Of course, the langauge might become a little obtuse with all
this stretching to suit your personal preference, and of course,
why bother looking at anything Okrand has written? We can just
make stuff up and as long as WE all decide it is okay, there's
no need to bother the man, right? Whose language IS it ANYWAY,
right?
> The German TKD has already come out. What if 'el is glossed as "eintreten",
> which must take the preposition "in"?
What if real live Klingons land in Australia tomorrow and take
over your country? As it happens, we know the rules can change
and I fully accept that. Meanwhile, this exercise in fantasy of
yours is not all that interesting. First, I'd have to know that
Okrand actually wrote the German edition, rather than just have
Paramount hire someone to translate it without consulting with
Okrand. Next, I'd have to believe that Okrand speaks German as
well as he speaks English, or perhaps better, since then he
would be more likely to make errors in English than in German.
This is not happening.
> What happens if, tommorow, a German
> Klingonists says that you can't say "juH vI'el", but must say "juHDaq
> jI'el", because the German verb is clearly intransitive? Are you going to
> say that the German TKD is non-canon, and the English TKD is?
If Okrand wrote the English version and Paramount (or
anybody else) wrote the German version, that is EXACTLY what
I'll say.
> The accident of case assignment in English is no basis for argumentation.
bImujchu'. It is simply not accidental. There are too many verbs
in the dictionary which include prepositions in the definition
to believe this for a second. If he wants an implied
preposition, he includes one, or chooses an English word which
already includes the concept. To orbit is to go AROUND. To enter
is to go INTO. To proceed is to go TOWARD. Meanwhile, we've got
this word translated as just plain "go". So why do you feel you
have such great insight that you alone understand that Okrand
REALLY meant "go to" instead of just plain "go", like he wrote
it in the definition in the dictionary?
Ah, I forget that you are psychic. In fact, you are so tuned
into Okrand's subconscious that you know what he means even
better than HE does. He just THOUGHT he meant "go". He REALLY
meant "go to". His word processor autocorrected his grammar and
ate the word "to". Or maybe he wrote it out by hand and whoever
typed it in for him could not read his handwriting. Or maybe he
had an epileptic SEIZURE just as he was about to type the word
"to" and he just forgot about it and went on to the next word.
> The only such basis is what we can infer about the semantics of these verbs.
> We know that verbs other than ghoS take direct objects. I maintain that the
> verb the *least* semantically distant from ghoS is jaH. So the one other
> verb I *would* expect to take a direct object is jaH.
Read the English definition for the verb {ghoS}. "Approach": In
English, this takes an object, which is the destination of your
current path. "Go away from": In English, this includes the
preposition. We don't have to make one up the way you are adding
"to" to {jaH}. "Proceed": In English, this is intransitive,
though it also includes motion along a prescribed path, like all
the other definitions for {ghoS}. "Come": Also intransitive
implying motion along a prescribed path. "Follow (a course)":
The object is described here as a course which describes the
direction of the motion.
All this leads me to believe that {ghoS} is a verb describing
the subject moving along a prescribed path. The verb can be
transitive or intransitive. When transitive, the object is
either the path, the destination of the path or the origin of
the path.
{jaH} is defined as "go". Not "go to". Not "go from". Not "Go
into". Not anything but just plain "go". If {jaH} implied a
vague collection of prepositional concepts, like {ghoS} it
probably would have included them in the definition, like {ghoS}
did.
> Now, understand that my own policy all along, too, has been to err on the
> side of caution.
[charghwI' stares in disbelief, mouth agape]
> But if we bar jaH here, then we'll need canon to justify
> the use of direct objects with Dech, 'el, and bav, which you regarded as so
> obvious.
Except of course for the canon which already exists in the
plainly legible and comprehendable definitions in TKD...
> You have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that your criterion
> for obviousness is better than mine.
I can only assume this is because you are not listening and
prefer to win a point whether it is right or not. It's right
there in front of you, man! Open your eyes! Okrand rarely has
violated his own definitions in his canon.
There are ambiguous definitions, like {vIH}, but {jaH} and
{ghoS} are not ambiguous in terms of which one includes locative
(prepositional) concepts and which one doesn't. {ghoS} clearly
does. {jaH} clearly doesn't.
> If we can truly be sure of nothing but
> ghoS taking direct objects, then "yuQ vIbav" can no longer be considered
> acceptable. (And I must say, I have problems with that use of bav anyway.)
How exactly DO you use {bav}? I'm dying to see.
> >Meanwhile, {jaH} seems quite naturally intransitive. All the
> >canon we have for it is intransitive. It's definition is an
> >intransitive English word. I can't find a reason to think it is
> >transitive for any purpose, let alone as some abstract
> >association you've made up with the verb {ghoS} by inserting the
> >descriptor "directional" where Okrand never used it.
>
> There is nothing (*nothing*) natural about following a course being direct
> objects, and going to locations not.
Except of course that in your own words right there you say,
"following a course" (the preposition is implied in the verb)
and "going TO locations" (the preposition needs to be explicit
because the verb does not imply it). Let me introduce you to the
helpful preposition. You apparently use them without realizing
it. Klingon similarly has grammatical constructions which
demonstrate prepositional concepts. They are not needed when the
verb implies that prepositional concept.
> "I killed the Klingon" --- Klingon is a
> patient, and that's naturally a direct object, just as I am an agent, and
> that makes me naturally a subject. But for other roles in the sentence,
> there is a fluidity as to what the language picks. Canon is not decisive,
> because -Daq is optional, not proscribed.
Okrand is trying to describe to you the special case in which
{-Daq} can be omitted. In that special case, the English
translation clearly makes the same prepositional implication as
the Klingon. That implication is missing from the definition of
{jaH}. The association you have made between these two verbs is
completely of your own making. It has nothing to do with the
actual meaning of the verbs.
You are correct in that the relationship between a verb and its
direct object is often arbitrary. Your mistake is that you are
ignoring the way Okrand intentionally describes these
relationships in his wording of the definitions.
> The English rendering is not
> decisive, because there isn't a word for "go" in English which *could* take
> a direct object.
THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. IF HE WANTED TO DEFINE IT IN SUCH A
WAY THAT IT MEANT "GO TO" HE WOULD HAVE USED "APPROACH" INSTEAD
OF "GO". HE CHOSE "GO" BECAUSE {jaH} DOES NOT INCLUDE
LOCATIVE/PREPOSITIONAL ASSOCIATION WITH A DIRECT OBJECT.
> As for me, I can't see anything less "abstract" about bav
> being transitive than ghoS; and 'locative' is a superset of 'directional'
> --- I was, if anything, being more conservative than the wording allows, not
> less.
Yet, you were being completely fictional in your choice of which
verbs you chose to apply this concept to. You began by
discounting the definitions. That is one hell of a way to gain
greater understanding of how to use the vocabulary.
> In real life, I'm happy to emend all the vIjaH in my text to 'oHDaq jIjaH;
Good. You should. It is farther from correct than your earlier
use of {-ghach} on verbs without suffixes. Those were highly
marked, but not ungrammatical. Your use of {jaH} is
ungrammatical, since you make it transitive when it clearly is
not. It needs an association with these nouns you choose to
apply as objects, and by the definition Okrand clearly and
intentionally chose for this word, it HAS no direct object.
> but particularly since Mark had let me get away with it in Hamlet (then
> again, we are both Esperantists and Lojbanists, and that explains why we
> would see jaH as transitive; the real issue is, why should you not) --- I'd
> rather have grounds more relative than this.
Hamlet has {jaH} as a transitive verb?
Say it isn't so! It looks so -- gasp -- so FOOLISH.
> --
> Nick Nicholas Linguistics, Uni. Melbourne
charghwI'