tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 05 17:43:21 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: story, part 2
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: story, part 2
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:42:59 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:11:35 -0800 "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> 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.
"Listen" is intransitive in English. Look it up. I did. Concise
Oxford Dictionary.
> 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.
Ultimately, I have to disagree with this. When there is an
explicit direct object and the verb prefix disagrees in person
and number, the prefix, which usually indicates direct object,
instead indicates indirect object. That is not written in TKD,
but there are canon examples showing it. There are no canon
examples I can recall which justify any other setting where what
would be interpreted as an indirect object being used as a
direct object. Krankor and I disagree on this, but he has no
examples to show him right.
> 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.")
I know he has this perspective. I disagree for the simple reason
that we now have accumulated enough canon to examine and expect
some example to support this assumption. It isn't there. He may
yet be proven right, but I think that in the light of the
quantity we've been given in TKW, even Krankor may be weakening
his belief in this.
> 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.)
Count me among them. Otherwise, the object might be another
person who participates "with", or a place one participates "at".
> 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.
No problem. The English word was chosen to map this versatility
in the presence or absence of a direct object, and we have canon
to show it in use both ways.
> 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.
I believe that just as we have a word that means "care for", we
would have gotten "listen to" had Okrand intended {'Ij} to be
transitive.
> 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.
And we need to find out which of these meanings applies, through
examining canon where it exists. {vIH} is just such an example,
and while Krankor would still use {vIH} alone where I would use
{vIHmoH}, there are examples of my interpretation of {vIH} and
there are none of Krankor's. I respect Krankor, but I disagree
on this point and he has no examples of his interpretation in
canon for this verb or for any other which he interprets to have
a different relationship with its direct object than the English
definition implies.
> 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.
The thing you are avoiding here is recognizing that Okrand
intentionally chose the words you describe as "gloss". Many are
somewhat vague and become more clear as we see how he uses them.
I think examining the way he uses them is more effective than
making up new relationships between verbs and objects not
implied in the "gloss" or in any canon. The "gloss" is canon.
> 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.
The "intuitive" leap is to assume that the definition actually
maps to the meaning of the word, both in meaning and in
relationship to its object (if there is one).
> 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.
{Dub} is an excellent example of a trap left for us. Still,
canon arises which clarifies it. Besides, "improve" can be
intransitive OR transitive. {Dub} did not violate the potential
relationship to an object given in its English definition. The
relationship between the transitive form of "improve" and its
object is exactly the same as the relationship between {Dub} and
its object. There is no extention on the kind of relationship
between the object and verb as there is in Krankor's extention
of "participate" or Nick's extention of "go".
> >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.
You assume he had but one reason, and assume how he would have
cast it were he to use {'Ij}. I don't think he would have just
plugged in {'Ij} where he placed {Qoy}.
> >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.
I just took it from the definition in TKD. I agree that most
commonly, it is less controversially used to indicate refusal on
the part of the speaker to DO something, but disagreement is
right there, too.
> ~mark
charghwI'