tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 09 08:06:16 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC Rules... Transitive vs Intransitive

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:39:44 -0800
>From: Ken N <[email protected]>
>
>jatlh SuStel:
>
>>Here's the example I've always used. Take the verb {ghor}. It's glossed as 
>>"break." Does this mean "break something," or does it mean "fall apart"? 
>>These are different meanings! English tends to allow almost anything to be 
>>used transitively or intransitively, but that's no reason to assume that 
>>Klingon can, too.
>
>I agree that's no reason to assume that Klingon can, but I don't understand
>the reason we assume that Klingon can't??????????????

Other structures in Klingon would imply that Klingon doesn't play this game
(note that a great many languages don't.  It's by no means unique to
English to do this with words, but it is a bit rare and very characteristic
of English).

The causative suffix -moH probably wouldn't exist or be very productive in
a language that does this sort of blurring; its whole purpose is to
accomplish this very distinction between "break by itself" and "break
something else."  It's hard to imagine having such a suffix in a language
that uses the same word for both.

And there are canon examples of distinctions made with this suffix that
also imply the same.  Consider "vem" and "vemmoH."  In English, "wake up"
means both, either to cease sleeping or make someone else cease sleeping.
Klingon carefully keeps them separate, with -moH ("I woke up" vs. "I woke
up the captain" becomes: "jIvem" vs. "HoD vIvemmoH").  Same with "poS" (or
perhaps "poSchoH") vs. "poSmoH".  And SoQ/SoQmoH, QeychoH/QeymoH, etc etc.
It doesn't seem likely that we would be provided with these pairs, one of
them explicitly marked as causative/transitive, if Klingon blurred the line
as English does.

>I'm curious about "THAT's how it works." Is that how it works or is that how
>he used it. Do we know for sure. Personally I have a hard enough time with
>grammar and wouldn't make it more complicated. If needed a verb can be
>defined by context. Isn't there any examples of transitive verbs being used
>intransitivtly like "I go" no object. I don't know if this is exactly the
>example I'm looking for but it the only one I can think of.

"I go" no object, or better still "we eat" no object (which is canon) is a
different kind of intransitive use of a transitive verb.  The meaning
doesn't change, it's just that the object is elliptical, and vague or
general.  Remember: in "the stick broke" vs. "the stick broke the cup", it
makes a VERY big difference whether or not the verb is being used
transitively or intransitively, if you're a stick: you may or may not wind
up in pieces!  In "we eat" vs. "we eat qagh", either way you wind up with a
full belly.

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMqw48sppGeTJXWZ9AQGQDgL/XdKCWB/xuzRILNSy35P4YPmPSWpsRXhA
j+PzEklWrNrQ8+E20+rhcpazizlSOwWDs6n5pKvyyid/t87yPQrrTPRKkpHpMwvU
hw7BcMoHHSEt+qXJn07I0lYsn6xHNeRi
=G9Dw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level