tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 31 13:51:37 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: -wI'

>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 11:21:06 -0800
>From: Susan Farmer <[email protected]>

>>>If you are trying to phrase something such as "the book which is
>>>green," the Klingon phrase is simply
>>>
>>>                                                paq SuD
>>
>>That works fine if you know the thing is a book.  But what if you can't
>>identify that smooth thing your targ has in his fangs?  Do you call it
>>a {HabwI'}, a {Doch Hab}, or a {Habbogh Doch}?  *Can* you say {HabwI'}?
>>That's the question.
>>
>>-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>>


>>From my position of *complete* ignorance  :-)  if /Hab/ is a verb (which
>it is) and /-wI'/ is a verb suffix (which it is), why *can't* you say
>/HabwI'/??

This discussion has gone on way too long.  I don't mean that it's
inappropriate to keep on with it (on the contrary!), simply that it seems
that the question here is awfully simple (and fairly minor) and shouldn't
have taken this much give-and-take.

OK.  Let's go through this:

-wI' is given on p.44 as "one who does, thing which does."  Examples there
are given which follow those definitions.

*Some* people take the definitions in TKD as restrictive, and see a
difference between "one" and "thing", taking "one" to imply a person (and
not a thing).  I'm not saying whether they're right or wrong, this is just
how they're seeing it.  So from this standpoint, if "-wI'" were said to
mean only "one who does," that means it has to refer to a *person*, not a
thing.

Some people (many of whom are the same as those in the above paragraph)
make a further distinction between "one who does" and "one who is."  From
this standpoint, if "-wI'" only meant "one who does," it wouldn't make
sense to use it with a so-called "stative" verb, like "beQ," since the
subjects of such verbs don't "do" anything.

On p.164, "-wI'" is given as "one who is, one who does, thing which does."
On p.167, "-wI'" is given as "one who is, one who does."

Taking all these definitions together, *IF* you hold by both the two
philosophies enumerated above, that would imply that "-wI'" could imply
(1) a person ("one") who is the subject of an active verb ("one who does")
(2) a person ("one") who is the subject of a stative verb ("one who is")
(3) a thing ("thing") which is the subject of an active verb ("thing which
does")

BUT NOT

(4?) a thing ("thing") which is the subject of a stative verb.

That is, "beQwI'" could only mean a flat *person*, since "-wI'" on statives
only applies to people, while "So'wI'" could mean (and does mean) a
cloaking device (thing which cloaks), since it's active, and could also
mean a person who hides things too.  That is, "So'wI'" can be shorthand for
"So'bogh Doch" or "So'bogh nuv," while "beQwI'" can only mean "beQbogh
nuv/nuv beQ."

With me so far?

NOW.  If you DON'T agree with those two philosophies (I don't), you don't
have the problem.  It all boils down to whether or not you think Okrand was
being exhaustive or illustrative, and whether or not he really draws those
distinctions between "one" and "thing" and between "is" and "does."

So that's the *question*.  The answer?  It's a matter of how you're going
to interpret.  You can argue about how to interpret the words that are
there, but you can sort of see where both (or however many there are)
schools of thought get their basis.

~mark

Back to archive top level