tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 06 07:50:31 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: More Translations...
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: More Translations...
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:49:50 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 08:27:23 -0800 Marc Ruehlaender
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > > K: tIghmeylIj HIghojmoH.
> > > E: Teach me your customs.
> >
> > Here's another double-object problem. charghwI', of course, would adore it,
> > but I don't.
Nope. I consider this to be incorrect. We now have canon on how
to use {-moH} on transitive verbs, and this example does not
follow the rules illustrated by that canon. It clearly should be
{jIHvaD tIghmeylIj tIghojmoH.}
I agree with most of the rest of what you said (except for the
statement that I would like something I really don't like).
> > This is another sentence which must be expanded. Here's one way:
> >
> > tIghmeylIj vIHaD vIneH. HIghojmoH.
> >
> This is just to check whether I understood that thing with {-moH} on
> transitive verbs correctly:
>
> The object of {ghoj} is the subject (= topic :) you learn about, so that
> should still be the object of {ghojmoH}, right?
Yes. The only time that the person being taught would be the
object of {ghojmoH} would be if you were using {ghoj}
intransitively. Consistently, when you put {ghoj} on an
intransitive verb, the subject is the entity doing the causing,
the direct object is the entity doing the action of the root
verb. Meanwhile, when the verb is transitive, the entity doing
the action of the main verb gets shoved out to the indirect
object (-vaD} position to make room for the object of the root
verb.
mughojmoH *Qanqor*.
jIHvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH *Qanqor*.
I am the one doing the learning -- the action of the root verb.
When it is intransitive, I become direct object of the verb with
{-moH}. when it is transitive, I become the indirect object of
the verb with {-moH} so the direct object of the root verb can
take that spot.
> The subject of {ghoj} should become the "indirect object" of {ghojmoH},
> right?
Right.
> So it should be {jIHvaD tIghmeylIj tIghojmoH}, right?
Right.
> > > K: mIvvetlh yItuQmoHQo'.
> > > E: Don't put that helmet on.
> > >
> > Ugh. This one is probably the worst of the lot.
You are perceptive to see the problem. The element you were
missing was you are both the causitive agent (subject of
causation) and the agent (subject) of the root verb. If the verb
were intransitive, that would imply {-'egh} is needed, but if we
follow the rules, that makes the you who is subject of the root
verb move to the indirect object position.
SoHvaD mIvvetlh yItuQmoHQo'!
We don't have canon to prove whether "to put on clothes" means
to put them on yourself or someone else. Until such canon
appears, I'll choose the more potentially productive latter
case. It seems the more conservative interpretation flowing
along the feel of Okrand's useage in other words (like {DuH}).
> > The problem is similar to
> > the one with {ghojmoH}. There's an added complication. The object of the
> > English translation of {tuQmoH} "put on (clothes)" would be the piece of
> > clothing. The object of the English translation of {tuQHa'moH} "undress"
> > could NOT be the clothing, it would have to be the person who is being
> > undressed. The negation of a verb seems to be changing its object!
This is probably why {tuQHa'} is defined at all. If the meaning
of a root verb with suffix is different in meaning or
relationship to objects than one might expect, it is appropriate
to make a point of this and define the word-with-affixes
specifically in the dictionary.
> I don't think so.
I do think so. I think that is why {tuQHa'moH} exists in the
dictionary at all.
> > Some might interpret this as evidence that words which are verbs with
> > suffixes and which are extra entries in the dictionary are seperate words
> > in their own right, and they work just like their English glosses. I
> > still don't buy it. My guess is that Okrand simply did a sloppy job
> > explaining this.
That is possible, but the word "glosses" is starting to bother
me. It is an insult to Okrand to say that he didn't bother to
choose words in English which would provide useful definitions.
Meanwhile, he's written a substantial quantity of text at this
point, and the vast majority of it fits the definitions he gives
in the dictionary. Every time someone doesn't like a definition,
the entire vocabulary gets insulted with the word "gloss". It's
getting to be like black sweaters and goatees in the 60's. Every
cool person complains about the "glosses" in TKD, then suggests
that you can't tell anything about useage from the definitions
(even though Okrand has a high consistency with the expected
useage in his other canon) and proceeds to use that as evidence
that you can use these words in some new and unusual way, since
the "glosses" don't tell you enough to stop you from doing so.
I'm not impressed. I will continue to use the vocabulary in the
way most consistent with the definitions offered in TKD until
some other canon provides insight on specific verbs (like
{DuH}). At that point, I notate that in my personal vocabulary
list and move on. I have little respect for the impatience I see
every time I see the word "gloss". If you can't deal with the
"glosses", then you probably should go off and study French
instead of Klingon.
> > In fact, I'm not even sure if {tuQ} is transitive! {jItuQ} *could* mean, "I
> > wear clothing," and that could be the end of it. Still, I don't really
> > believe this. I shall examine your sentence with the assumption that {tuQ}
> > is transitive, and the object is the article of clothing. (And please take
> > any further debate of this subject out of KLBC!)
> >
> That's what I did, though I think most of my questions still belong
> under KLBC...
And I think {tuQmoH} can be either transitive or intransitive
unless further evidence makes this unacceptable. I will use it
either way, and if Okrand uses it in some source only one way,
I'll start using it only that one way until he uses it the
other. I can live with its use either way. I am far less likely
to use {tuQHa'moH} transitively until I see an explicit canon
example.
> > mIvvetlh yItuQchoHQo'!
> > Don't start wearing that helmet!
> >
> > Surely, this takes care of the "put on" idea, right?
Yes. I like this casting a lot.
> If {tuQ} is transitive in the sense above and my understanding of
> {-moH} on transitive verbs (as further above :) is O.K., then
>
> {mIv vItuQ} is "I wear a helmet.", right?
Yes.
> {jIHvaD mIv vItuQmoH} is "I put on a helmet.", right?
Yes.
> {SoHvaD mIv vItuQmoH} is "I cause you to wear a helmet.", right?
> (meaning that I put it on you or s.th., excuse my English here.)
Yes.
> {SoHvaD mIv yItuQmoH} is "Put on the helmet!", right?
Yes.
> And finally, {SoHvaD mIvvetlh yItuQmoHQo'} is "Don't put on that helmet!",
> right?
Yes.
> As for {tuQHa'moH}: {tuQHa'} means "miswear" to me, so I think
> {tuQHa'moH} is more probably derived from {tuQmoH}, i.e. it means
> "put off (clothes)" and the clothes are still the direct object
> while the one being undressed is the indirect object.
You are ignoring the definition. {-Ha'} means different things
on different verbs. Sometimes it means "wrongly" {yajHa'}.
Sometimes it indicates a reversal of action {QeyHa'moH}.
Sometimes it is simply a very strong negation {parHa'}. That is
the main reason it exists in explicit definitions in the
dictionary. Okrand is showing us how {tuQHa'moH} is to be
interpreted. Take his word for it. It does not mean you made a
mistake while dressing. It means you reverse the process of
dressing.
> Thus
> "I undress him." becomes {ghaHvaD jItuQHa'moH}, which makes
> perfect sense to me, even though there's a "no object" prefix
> on a {-moH}-ed verb. To me this is similar to {jISop}, you
> don't specify _what_ you are taking off of him. If you just
> remove his boots, "I take off his boots." becomes {ghaHvaD
> DaS vItuQHa'moH}. Right?
I'm less sure, simply because of the definition. It may well be
that Klingons simply never use an object with {tuQHa'moH}, even
though they do use one sometimes for {tuQHa'}. English and
all other langauges are certainly filled with more radically
irrational exceptions than this. That would explain the
existence of the definition in its current form. Meanwhile,
there are other words that can serve your meaning.
ghaHvaD DaS vIteq.
> (btw: if I'm wearing his boots, then taking them off would
> have to be {jIHvaD DaSDaj vItuQmoH}, right?)
jIHvaD DaSDaj vIteq.
Or perhaps more clearly:
qamDu'wIjvo' DaSmeyDaj vIteq.
> HomDoq
charghwI'