tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 28 15:20:43 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: -moH verbs as intransitive???

ghItlh ~mark:

>I'm sorry, Qermaq. You've really confused me. I don't see what the
>problem is. Worried that chemoH means "create (v int)"? Uh, how can
>create be intransitive? How is it possible to create without creating
>something? If you're not creating anything, in what sense are you
>creating?

Confused or not, that just answered the question! The only reason I would 
accept chenmoH as an intransitive verb is (A) if the KLI says it is (which the 
New Word list says) and (B) the masters of the tongue (which include you, but 
not me) feel it is acceptable. It appears you agree that it makes no sense to 
call chenmoH intransitive. You show this through the meaning of the word, I 
show it from an exploration of the elements and their functions. So I guess 
the word isn't intransitive. I guess charghwI' will need to edit the list 
AGAIN... (charghwI' vIvup! not rIn Qu'Daj...)

>So, there's nothing wrong with {jIchenvIpmoH} for "I am afraid to create"
>(aside from the fact that Klingons have a social taboo against using
>non-negated -vIp in first person). I means "afraid to create... in
>general." The object is ellipsized, made sorta non-specific, but still
>there.

jIyaj! 'ej vIyaj!! That makes all kinds of sense all of a sudden! cholughmoH 
'ej jIlughchoH. Put simply, a no-object prefix does not automatically imply 
intransitive usage. I am glad!

>We can use
>{Sop}/"eat" intransitively both in English and in Klingon, but in both
>languages the basic meaning and even valency of the verb isn't really
>changed. It isn't possible to eat without there being something on the
>receiving end (the thing being eaten); the point is whether or not that
>thing is something specific or enters into the discussion. If I say
>"jISop" or "I eat", obviously I mean that I eat something, otherwise how
>could I be eating? But what I eat is not really what I'm talking about:
>I'm merely stating that I do engage in eating stuff.

Your points are as usual correct and clear. The words 'eat' and *Sop* both can 
be used intransitively and transitively. I agree. And the English 'create' 
fits here too. But the Klingon *chenmoH* cannot simply because of the elements 
out of which it is formed. The word literally translates as 'cause to take 
form', not 'create' - that is a simplified gloss which fits much of the time, 
but not necessarily all. -moH makes a verb like Sop into SopmoH, and now the 
subject requires another party to cause to eat.

So, I still assume that calling ANY -moH verb intransitive is a no-no. 
jIchenmoH, I create, implies, as you have said, an object; or more precisely, 
an 'agent' for the subject to cause to act the verb - in the long run, it 
comes out the same. So even if I use a no-object prefix, chenmoH MUST be 
transitive.

I happily accept your correction of my interpretation of intransitivity and 
no-object prefixes. And I certainly agree with all the points you set forth. 
But my main point was that there's canon which led someone to label chenmoH as 
possibly intransitive (and I honestly haven't a clue who that might be, nor 
does it matter that much), and I feel that this piece of canon was 
misinterpreted. There is, I contend, no way for a -moH verb to be 
intransitive, since the suffix demands the presence, even if not the mention, 
of another party other than the subject. If there is an argument to this 
point, I really would like to understand it. If the New Words list is simply 
in error, well, then I've pointed that out. 'ej maja'chuqtaHvIS, jIghojpu'.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level