tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 13 17:18:06 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Nouns as Verbs
- From: "Dr. Maciej St. Zieba" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Nouns as Verbs
- Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 20:17:33 EDT
"Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:20:58 -0700
>>From: Consulat General de Pologne <#[email protected]>
>
>>"Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> >> 3) Is it possible to use nouns as verbs. I know there are few
>>> >> nouns that are also verbs, but there is a (small indeed) number
>>> >> of them which are not verbs.
>>>
>>> I doubt it. Is it meaningful to have such a thing? What would a verb
>>> "book" mean (and don't tell me to reserve; that's an English idiom)? Or
>>> "to heart" or "to history" or "to shuttlecraft"? There's no evidence of
>>> any generic verbalizing construction that I know of. There are ways to use
>>> the nouns, though...
>
>>> ~mark
>
>>In Sanskrit there is a whole class of verbs - class X (ten) ending with {-aya-
>>which are almost exclisively denominativa (noun-originating) or causativa.
>>In Polish we have a similar facility of forming verbs of nouns with the
>>ending {-owa-}
>
>Is the tenth ga.na really denominative? I thought the cvi pratyaya was
>used more for that. I'm not sure what it has to do with Klingon, though.
The tenth class contains both denominatives and causatives.
I don't understand what is *cvi* pratyaya.
>On a scale of complexity, if Klingon is a 3, English is probably an 8 and
>Sanskrit is a 15. Sanskrit plays *extremely* fast and loose with its noun
>and verb derivations and meanings, and has enough different forms to make
>English look like babytalk. To try to apply it to Klingon (which is made
>to look like babytalk by English) is like plugging a battery-powered toy
>into a high-voltage line.
>
>Bear in mind, too, that Sanskrit was developed very highly as a poetic
>language (more so than a vernacular, even), and poets were encouraged to
>use more and more obscure forms to show off their erudition. Also, even if
>Sanskrit weren't so poetic in its use at the time, the Sanskrit which has
>reached us is mostly from epic poems and stories. I've never studied
>Polish so I can't say much about it, but I'd be caution about drawing too
>many conclusions from it to Klingon either.
I have not been educated on the poetic Sanskrit but on the philosophical
one (don't only tell me that Upanis.ads or Bhagavadgi-ta- are philosophy)
- the elaborated yet precise prose of Nya-ya, Vijn~a-nava-da and Veda-nta.
I would myself have much difficulty understanding Sanskrit poets, especially
the court poetry.
Polish is about 14.5 on your scale. With our 7 cases, 17 declinations
and 11 conjugations, 3 genders we have a very flexible syntax and
what we miss only - we can't make as long compound nouns and adjectives
(tatpurus.a , bahuvri-hi and dvigu are the three kinds "accepted")
as Sanskrit can. Three elements is the maximum and two only is the average,
and we use them less less often , even less often than in German.
Nevertheless your example with a toy and voltage is exagerated, the proof:
the success of having translated Hamlet and the Gospel, and the Sonnets etc.
My conclusions from Sanskrit and Polish do not need to be "conclusive"
for Klingon. They just serve as exaples, especially as an aswer to your
question: "Is it meaningful to have such a thing?"
As concerns: What would a verb "book" mean (and don't tell me to reserve;
that's an English idiom)? - I have answered to that before, and the
"English idiom" makes MUCH SENSE.
The answer of yours that is to some degree satisfactory to me is:
>>> There's no evidence of
>>> any generic verbalizing construction that I know of.
>>> There are ways to use
>>> the nouns, though...
and if you could explain me in details what do you mean by "ways
to use nouns ..." I would be wholy satisfied.
The origin of my question, if you haven't forgotten, was in the
question: How to express "X like Y", e.g. "to be [big] like Man.d.ara
mountain" (classical Sanskrit example of class X: man.d.arayati).
"I am [strong, bold ...?] like a bull" - says Indra in one of the hymns
I wanted to translate.
Some of you (plural) gave me some ideas, which may work.
And putting high voltage of even uncomlicated Vedic poetry into the batteries
of tlhIngan Hol is really interesting.
>Besides, we have enough trouble working out what -ghach is from among its
>possible meanings; a noun-to-verb construction would be even vaguer (as
>evidenced by your own examples).
Well, that's what the KLI is for, as I understand - to work out what -ghach
is, although it seems I would have little problem with it having experience
with Sanskrit *-tva-*, *-ta-* and Polish *-os'c'* and *-(s)two*.
>I guess, then, that the best answer to your question of "do we have
>something that does this in Klingon?" is "No." I've never seen any
>evidence of such a thing. Maybe there will be one someday, though I doubt
>it. But I could be wrong.
>
Finally a Klingo-like answer. I like the cold straitforwardness of your
"NO". Why only is it weakened with "I guess" and "But I could be wrong"?
>~mark
Qapla'
macheq
macheq noychoH jembatoQ
=========================================================================
lasciate ogni speranza voi qu'entrate
=========================================================================