tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 20 12:40:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC-double-object verbs
According to Alan Anderson:
>
...
> Indirect objects aren't defined by their *position* in the
> sentence; they're defined by their *role*. Indirect objects
> are affected by the action of the verb, but they are not the
> thing on which the verb acts. If you "give a gift to me",
> "gift" is still the DO; "me" is the indirect object. If you
> "give me a gift", nothing changes; "gift" is the DO, "me" is
> the IO. You can "feed the prisoner worms"; "worms" is the DO
> and "prisoner" is the IO. Time stamps and locatives are not
> objects of either sort.
Ahhh. You've just illustrated how slippery this concept can be.
If I say, "Feed the prisoner," you would probably consider the
prisoner to be the DO. If I said, "Feed the worms," you would
expect me to give some food to the worms. Only when I say,
"Feed worms to the prisoner," does it look like the worms are
the DO and the prisoner is the IO. Even here, I would argue
that the REAL parse of this would translate to "Feed the
prisoner by giving him worms." "In order to feed the prisoner,
give him worms."
So much of what we consider to be a direct or indirect object
is inherant of our understanding of a specific verb. "Give" and
"feed" are good examples because when we give something, that
thing we give is the thing whose ownership is transferred, not
the recipient of the thing. If we feed someone, the recipient
of food is the direct object. The food is not.
In Klingon, the parallel is the example of the verb {ghoS}.
What would be an indirect object or locative for any other verb
is the Direct Oject of {ghoS}. We do not know what specific
other verbs treat what would be locatives in this way. Also,
while I can certainly say, {juH vIghoS}, would I say, {juHvo'
vIghoS} or would that be {juHvo' jIghoS}? I have no certainty,
since we have no rule that says we can put a Type 5 suffix on a
direct object without making it an indirect object.
Similarly, the "care (about)" meaning of {SaH} goes through a
similar twist going between English and Klingon. In English,
"care" is intransitive. We need a preposition to attach an
object to this verb. What we take to be a preposition is
implied in the meaning of the Klingon verb. {DujwIj vISaHba'.}
"I obviously care about my ship." That which is an indirect
object in English is a direct object in Klingon.
This is why I feel less than rock certain of transitivity in
Klingon in general until Okrand gives us some better
guidelines. I am definitely NOT in the camp of those who feel
certain that ALL Klingon verbs can be used transitively and we
should just bend the definitions in TKD to make the translation
make sense. Meanwhile, I am ALSO not in the camp of those who
would dictate this attitude to be clearly WRONG.
Until Okrand gives us this badly needed explanation, my own
course is to conservatively avoid most of this definition
bending while not going TOO far out of my way to correct others
for using it. I accept things like {qajatlh} and {tajlIj HInob}
while not pushing that sort of usage to any extreme. When I see
more extreme uses of the "anything can be a direct object
because all verbs can be transitive" rule-qoq, I wince and try
to be even handed in my suggestion that this is not making the
language better.
Okrand has placed us in a bad position on this one. He needs to
respond to the topic of transitivity in general. Does it, like
English, vary from verb to verb, and if so, when do we get a
real word list which will include notation of transitivity
along with the dictionary (like a REAL dictionary would)? Is it
that all verbs can be either transitive or intransitive on
whim, and if so, how do we handle specific cases? If Klingon
has objects with no differentiating between direct or indirect
objects, as Krankor has suggested, then why do we have noun
suffixes like {-vaD} and what do we do with multiple objects
(where some would be considered indirect and other direct)?
That also touches on ditransitives like {pong}.
I really feel like we have done a poor job of prioritizing our
meager communication with Okrand. We got a word for "song"
before we got a description of the fundamental relationship
between verbs and transitivity. It is human for us to be drawn
to request words like {yejHaD} before getting to more
challenging things like transitivity, but I really think the
time has come to put other personal requests aside and get the
man to answer us on this issue.
PLEASE! ANYBODY WITH ACCESS TO OKRAND, could you get him to
clear this mess up? I've personally been asking this of those
more privileged with communication with Okrand for a couple
years now and I do not feel like the request has received
anywhere near the consideration it deserves.
How many times do we have to respond to "How do I say, 'My name
is Fred in Klingon," by evading the obvious verb {pong} because
we simply don't know how to use it?
[charghwI' sits down and promises he won't destroy another
keyboard with his head. Calm. Yes.]
So, is somebody going to ask him, or what?
charghwI'
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |