tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 04 14:08:35 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: story, part 2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:25:40 -0800
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
>On Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:46:36 -0800 "Mark E. Shoulson"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> It happens that I do believe 'Ij is transitive (or in Krankor's terms, that
>> its object is the thing listened to), mostly because if it isn't I can't
>> think of any way to use it in the sense of listening to something.
>
>I listen to you sing:
>bIbom. jI'Ij.
>
>bIbomtaHvIS jI'Ij.
>
>I listen to the baby cry:
>chuSDI' ghu jI'Ij.
>
>I listen to your powerful voice:
>HoSghajmo' ghoghlIj jI'Ij.
>
>I enjoy listening to opera:
>jI'Ijchu'mo' *opera* vItIvqu'!
>
>I listen to the sleeping guard:
>QongtaH 'avwI' jI'Ijmo' 'e' vISov.
>
>So, what is the problem?
You can almost do this with *any* transitive verb as well. "jIHoHmo'
bIHegh." etc. Replace "'Ij" with "legh" and you'll have a perfect
argument as to why "legh" should be intransitive (or more accurately why it
could be so.) We're down to the same problem we've long known: Okrand
didn't do a great job of noting transitivity in his dictionary. All we
really have to go on regarding it is our own intuition, and there's plenty
of room for disagreement there.
I note that "listen" is transitive in English, and that's often at least
part of our criterion: looking at the nature of the gloss. Also try
looking at it from the way Krankor presents the "transitive"/"intransitive"
argument. He's occasionally gotten annoyed and insisted that Klingon
didn't have a distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs. I've
discussed his POV with him, and as I understand it what he means is that a
Klingon verb which we call "intransitive" might indeed take an
object... just that we don't necessarily know what meaning the object would
have. So he'd say that "Qong" could have an object, but we don't yet know
what it is that is slept (perhaps "I sleep a night" or "I sleep a bed" or
"I sleep a rest.") And indeed I can agree with him for the most part,
though I tend to doubt that some verbs really have objects under pretty
much any circumstances. We've done related things, "deciding" that the
object of "jeS" is the activitty participated in, since "participate" is
semantically transitive in English, though syntactically its object is
governed by the preposition "in". (And I'm sure that some do not accept
this use of jeS, and I can't say they're wrong.)
English slurs its transitives and its intransitives too, in two distinct
ways. It seems that Klingon can blur the boundary in one way, but not the
other. On this I believe Krankor and I agree, as do most Klingonists. The
verb "eat" is transitive and intransitive in English (or more accurately it
is used transitively and intransitively). In "I eat an apple" there is an
object and transitive use. In "I eat every day," there is no object
("every day" is a timestamp), and the verb is used intransitively.
Nonetheless, the meaning of "eat" and the role played by its subject
doesn't change: one way or another it's the stomach of the subject that
winds up with something in it. When we use it intransitively, we merely
ellipsize the object. There's still something being eaten, but it's
something in general and not important to our discussion. We know Klingon
does this; Okrand says so. We can say "maSop." If 'Ij is transitive, then
your versions of listening are still valid by this fact, as are similar
recastings for any transitive verb, pretty much.
The other kind of both-way verb in English, I contend does not occur
(regularly) in Klingon. That is exemplified by a verb like "break." The
example I use often: Consider the sentence "The stick broke." What is it
that winds up in pieces afterwards? The stick. The subject. But when the
verb is used transitively, with a stated object, as in "The stick broke the
cup," all of a sudden it's the *object* that winds up in pieces, and not
the subject. The existence of verb-pairs and the -moH suffix in Klingon
imply strongly that Klingon doesn't do this. See the FAQ.
So, given a verb in Klingon, how do we know if it's transitive or
intransitive? We don't. All we have is our intuition. As a guideline, I
try to think if the verb has an object, in the sense that it always happens
with something else involved (like participate), and more specifically I
might consider the English gloss. Is it a both-way verb of the first type?
If so, then I would likely consider it transitive, since, in Krankor's
terms, if it has an object, we can intuitively make a good guess as to what
that object would be. Of the second type? Then I'd be inclined to give it
the intransitive meaning, because we can get the transitive meaning with
- -moH suffix, while going the other way is harder.
Note that this isn't always right. We know that "Dub" is transitive, where
I would have thought it intransitive. But I think it's safe to say that we
really don't know for certain in any given case, and either guess is pretty
much a matter of opinion.
>But there are many potential castings he could have chosen had
>he wanted to use the verb {'Ij}. {bomDI' 'IwlIj yI'Ij!} There,
>'Ij is quite intransitive.
But he didn't use 'Ij, and he told us why. Not because it wasn't
transitive, but because he wanted to stress succeeeding in hearing, not
just listening.
>Or how about a simple:
>
>Qo', pe'lora. HIyu'Qo'.
>
>> I might even consider "Qo'", but that usage is controversial, and deserves
>> to be so.
>
>Why? "I disagree, Pelora. Don't question me.
Personally, I like Qo' for this kind of thing. but some people believe
that Qo' can only be used to indicate refusal on the part of the speaker,
not forbidding the audience. I hadn't considered it as short for "I won't
accept//agree" or something as you propose. Hey, it could happen.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMqX2CMppGeTJXWZ9AQFGtwL+Pu9kI/sF2/dHdjDihhW4pADWBsY2d8y8
XJX4z4uLk6PSFQkMP31ciWGufp2A6Zn+Wn6iCcmZ4JGVZcMZpfUhz+l42D4qASGa
PtoUF+cNjPRSbyBmooY33zlpxWAbaC3F
=xRNg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----