tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 03 12:43:05 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: qIm/qImHa'



charghwI'vo':

With apologies to SuStel, I'm responding to this even though it
is labeled KLBC simply because it obviously is not just a
beginner's concern. This is a post of general interest to
anyone speaking Klingon.

According to Neal Schermerhorn:
> 
> qIm = pay attention, concentrate (v)
> 
> The definition is of the intransitive sense of "concentrate". In fact, since 
> we have buS = concentrate on (v) as well, qIm clearly is an intransitive verb.
> 
> We also have in TDK qImHa' = disregard (v). I cannot think of a useful meaning 
> of "disregard" that is intransitive. (Neither can Webster!) The word always 
> takes an object.

Note that in canon, we have examples of qIm used intransitively
(on the Klingon CD) while we have no examples of qIm used
transitively. We have {buS} used transitively (TKW p.81) and
{buSHa'} used transitively (TKW p.139) and no examples of
either used intransitively, except for the ambiguous {yIbuS!}
on CK.

And, we have no useage of {qImHa'} at all. I think the English
definition of the term is unfortunate. If it is not altogether
a mistake, at best I could imagine it as an odd sort of
command, like you walk up and yell, "Attention!", thinking that
a superior officer is entering the room and then realize that
it is just a waiter in an impressive uniform, and to save face
you yell, "Disregard!" and you turn and walk away.

I think that transitivity is Okrand's most obvious weakness in
TKD. He gave us no notation of transitivity in the definitions
and no advice on how to handle tagging objects on verbs whose
English definitions are intransitive (assuming as some argue
that there are no intransitive verbs in Klingon) and no means
of handling ditransitives.

He has addressed the ditransitive issue in canon for the verb
{pong} and for transitive verbs with {-moH} added, and through
example we slowly get examples of different verbs being used
transitively and intransitively, though for many verbs we
simply can't be sure yet.

> There is a definite conflict between the suffixed and unsuffixed verb - it 
> does not seem that -Ha' should suddenly change an intransitive verb, which as 
> I have shown doesn't need to be forced into a transitive role, into a 
> transitive verb!

bIqImchu'ta'.

> We also have, from TKW, buSHa' = ignore (v). Seems to me "disregard" and 
> "ignore" differ differently than "concentrate" and "concentrate on". I would 
> assume buSHa' is transitive, since the root verb is, and we would say 
> HIbuSHa'Qo' = Don't ignore me!
> 
> If my logic is correct, one of the following premises is correct.
> 
> A) qImHa' is intransitive because its root is, and a sentence like *jIqImHa' = 
> I disregard* is acceptable. Not likely.

I would not give up on this one just yet. Then again, maybe
this is just irregular which is WHY this entry is in the
dictionary in the first place.  More below.

> B) qImHa' is transitive, and so is qIm - but why have qIm as a transitive verb 
> when MO went through the trouble of providing buS as well, and making it 
> specifically transitive? It doesn't seem reasonable to assume this.

We have a canon example of {qIm} used intransitively and no
examples of it used transitively. At most, you might argue that
{qIm} can be used either way and in the definitions, Okrand
just failed to specify them very well.

> C) qIm is intransitive and (perhaps by magic?) qImHa' is transitive. This 
> would just plain upset me. Nowhere is there any indication that -Ha' can 
> change a verb in this way. Unfortunately, it appears that, unpleasant as it 
> is, this must be the correct answer! (And we all know *someone* is going to 
> run with this where they ought not to, and say that this means taDHa' = melt 
> (v.t.) and other such nonsense!)

Consider the verb {pegh}:

jIpeghlaH. "I can keep a secret."

nab pegh vISov. "I know a secret plan."

We know that these two uses of the same verb are correct. It is
simply irregular.

Consider the verb {lo'}:

taj vIlo'laH. "I can use the knife."

lo'laH taj. "The knife is valuable."

taj lo'laH vIlo'laH. "I can use the valuable knife."

Again,I feel rather strongly that these are all acceptable uses
of this verb. It is irregular.

qIm may indeed simply be irregular. I'll be happier when I find
a canon use of {qImHa'}. In fact, after thinking this through,
I'd lean heavily toward considering this to be irregular. I
mean, in English, can you think of a verb which is the
antithesis of "concentrate"? Would you be happier if {qImHa'}
were translated as "zone out, space out, behave in the manner
of a space cadet"?

> Sustel, yIqeltaH 'e' vISov! DuH Dawuqbogh Daja'neS (DawuqlaHchugh!).
> 
> Qermaq

charghwI'


Back to archive top level