tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 29 20:34:51 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: -moH verbs as intransitive???

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:30:45 -0700 (PDT)  "Mark E. Shoulson" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> >Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
> >
> >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?...
> >
> >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.
> 
> I think we're still not getting through to one another.  I don't know what
> exactly charghwI' meant by marking it as intransitive, any more than ANY
> Klingon verb can be used intransitively (though I contend that not all can
> be used transitively, or if they can it's not clear what the "object" is).
> I also don't see the difference between a verb that's transitive and
> intransitive in this sense and a verb that's transitive that we get to use
> intransitively (like all other transitive verbs).

When I mark verbs as transitive or intransitive, I do not intend 
for that to be so much a limiting definition as a notation that 
in canon, this is how these verbs have been used. If you look at 
the citation, you'll see that I only refer to TKD page 38. 
There, you find:

"For example, {chenmoH} 'he/she creates' could be translated 
'he/she causes to take shape' ({chen} take form, take shape), 
but this is an awkward English phrase."

I see this as an intransitive useage, much as {jISop} is an 
intransitive use of {Sop}. I do not guess at whether or not a 
verb can be used one way or the other. I do not judge whether 
an intransitive useage is really transitive, but with an 
unspecific object. I just note which way they have actually been 
used in canon. It is not meant to be definitive. It is meant to 
offer a sense of slightly more authority if useage fits canon. 
This is useful for words like {Dub} which many of us thought 
would be intransitive, though Okrand has only used it 
transitively.

> >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.

Fine, but right there in TKD Okrand uses it intransitively. Are 
you going to tell him that he is wrong?
 
> OK, "cause to take form".  Let's work with that meaning.  Obviously you
> have to cause SOMETHING to take form, or what does this mean?  Just as
> creating implies something is created at some point, causing to take form
> means something is caused to take form (I am not sure what the difference
> is if any).  Everything I said about "create" applies equally well to
> "cause to take form," and everything about "Sop" applies just as well to
> "chenmoH" and even to "SopmoH" (let's leave "je'"/feed out of this for
> now).  I can say "jISopmoH", meaning that I cause something to eat
> something, just in general or unspecifiedly, with both "objects"
> ellipsized.

I find this agreeable.
 
> >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.
> 
> The problem may be in what we choose to use the words to mean.  charghwI'
> likely meant "instransitive" to mean using with the unspecified objects (if
> he didn't, I have no clue what the *meaning* of an intransitive "chenmoH"
> could possibly mean.  charghwI'?).  

See above. I just notate what I find. I don't make them up.

> Now, I probably wouldn't have done that
> myself, since it's redundant to me, but it's HIS list and he gets to define
> his terms as he likes.  You're all bent out of shape because you're (very
> possibly) using a different meaning of "intransitive" than charghwI' meant
> when he wrote it.  

I just mean, "in the cited (sited?) canon, was there an object?" 
If no, it is an intransitive useage. If yes, it is a transitive 
useage. The notation in the list was actually an accident. In my 
other dictionaries, all the words are notated this way with 
citations on how they were used. Much of what is in the New 
Words List was block copied from my Pilot list and then modified 
to take on the HTML form it has today. The transitive or 
intransitive notation was a remnant I was slightly too lazy to 
remove.

I notate it in the Pilot so I have a better idea how to use a 
word. In the Access database, I note the actual canon so I can 
see what kind of object is involved. The majority of verbs have 
no notation of transitivity at all because most of the verbs 
have not been used in canon yet.

> I think this is all a tempest in a teacup.  After all,
> what were you panicked about?  The fact that charghwI' described {chenmoH}
> as intransitive.  Wait, you're upset about meaningless marks on a page?
> No, obviously you're worried about what they mean.  OK, what DO they mean?
> What DOES charghwI' mean when he says that?  It's THAT which you need to
> make sure of and see if it bothers you, not the words in a document.

So, just ask me.
 
> ~mark

charghwI'

Back to archive top level