tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 07 09:52:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DaH qep'a' vIghoS
I agree on one and disagree on another for reasons stated many
times before.
According to [email protected]:
>
> In a message dated 97-07-16 09:24:09 EDT, Dr Schoen writes:
>
> << DaH qep'a' vIghoS >>
>
> As a proponent of using verbs of motion with direct objects instead of
> locatives and no-object verb prefixes, I like your subject line.
This is good.
> I even have one more bullet. TKD p178 begins with <mIch 'elpu' jay'>. This
> is pure evidence that MO considers <'el> capable of taking a direct object!
This is good.
> As I am writing this after returning from the qep'a' loSDIch, I have already
> winced at the two games' lines we used there: Qo'noSDaq jIchegh DI', ......
This one is good as is.
> and juHwIj pa'Daq 'el HoSDo' 'ej ......
I winced at this one, too.
> Obviously, I would have preferred
> Qo'noS vIcheghDI', .....
I disagree strongly. You don't return Kronos, and {chegh} is
not defined as "return to". Since the verb requires a
preposition in English and there is no such preposition stated
in the definition (contrasting with {wuq}, for example), I
think the best form is {Qo'noSDaq jIcheghDI'}.
Otherwise, are you saying "I return to Kronos" or "I return
from Kronos" or "I return via Kronos" or "Kronos was disrupted
from its normal orbit and I used a huge tractor beam to put it
back where it was supposed to be -- I returned Kronos."?
> and juHwIj pa' 'el HoSDo' 'ej ......
I agree. In English, "enter" takes a direct object with no
preposition, similar to "orbit" and "approach". I don't believe
for a minute that any verb having to do with motion can take a
direct object with no preposition.
> OTOH, when I personally asked MO at the Cabaret Saturday evening, he answered
> that he would not answer clearly at this time. So, MO has allowed this
> discussion to continue with bullets available on both sides.
It is very simply a complex issue. You can't understand a verb
if you do not understand its relationship with its objects.
While Okrand does not wish to address transitivity and
explicitly said so at qep'a', promising that the new book would
not address transitivity, it is clear from the new information
on how verbs of speech are properly used, that you cannot
really understand a verb and its proper useage until you
understand the valid nouns for the role of direct object.
Indirect objects and other nouns can be related through various
prepositional constructions explaining the connection between
them and the verb, but a direct object must simply be
appropriate for any specific verb.
Just because a verb implies motion, that doesn't mean you can
pick a destination for the direct object. {jaH} and {chegh}
cannot take a direct object with our current understanding of
these verbs.
The object of "orbit" {bav} is not a destination. It is the
object which sits at one of the two focal points of the
eliptical path. This is the unique relationship between this
verb and its object. You can't generalize about verbs of motion
and their objects.
I'm amazed that this is not clear by now. Explaining it again
feels futile, since I'm sure I'll be seeing this same argument
again with no more substance behind it than this time.
> peHruS
charghwI'