tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 05 07:21:34 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jajlo'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
>From: [email protected]
>
>In a message dated 97-06-03 14:52:55 EDT, SuStel writes:
>
><< I agree with your analysis, but let's be clear: the word {muvmoH} in the
> Addendum is defined as "recruit (v)." Transitivity is NOT indicated. (If
>it
> were, we'd have a lot less arguing about it.) >>
>
>So far I have not seen transitivity indicated for any other verb, either.
>
>I have an idea, whether radical to you all, that ALL tlhIngan Hol verbs may
>be regarded as void of transitivity/intransitivity. They merely either take
>an object or they do not take an object. Although theoretically all verbs
>may take an object, many TKD glosses are clearly stative verbs in other
>languages and cannot be considered transitive in those languages. Meanwhile,
>adding {-moH} to a Klingon verb (or stative verb) often indicates to the
>English-speaker transitivity. However, I argue that even verbs with the
>{-moH} suffix need not be considered transitive.
>
>lojmIt poSmoH loD is clearly transitive to the thinker of English. In
>tlhIngan Hol the verb merely has an object. jIpoSmoH is a tlhIngan Hol verb
>without an object, that's all. It means, obviously, "I open," not "I open
>it."
You are confusing some of the concepts here. "jIpoSmoH" means "I open,"
yes, and I suppose technically you could say that is not transitive because
it has no explicit object. However, it IS still a transitive usage! It's
just that the object is unstated and general. When I say "I open," I must
be opening SOMETHING. It's just that the thing being opened is not
important enough to mention, or is just stuff in general. Notably,
"jIpoSmoH" does NOT mean the same as "jIpoS." The first means I go around
opening things, the second means I am open or become open myself.
Owing to the existence of -moH and pairs like poS/poSmoH, vem/vemmoH, it
would seem that Klingon does not mix active and middle voice as English
does (as in "I broke the vase" and "the vase broke.") If you believe that
"jIpoSmoH" means "I open" in the sense of "I become open", i.e. "jIpoS,"
then what is -moH doing in the language at all? It's pretty plain from the
existing examples and vocabulary that this mixing does not take place.
>Well, so much for rambling. My underlying radical tenet is that tlhIngan Hol
>verbs are not classified at all as transitive and intransitive. Insofar as
>logical, any tlhIngan Hol verb may take an object or may not take an object.
You're not completely alone in that; Krankor always gets exasperated when
people say this verb is or is not transitive. The trick is to be careful
when you say "insofar as logical." By exactly what logic? By English
logic, the verb "wake" either takes an object or doesn't: "I wake" (meaning
I cease sleeping) and "I wake you" (meaning I rouse you from sleep.) But
that involves a shift of meaning, a shift which English-speakers are
pleased to call "logical" but Klingon-speakers, according to the
dictionary, are not: a Klingon would say "jIvem" for the first meaning, and
"qavemmoH" for the second. That is clear from the definitions given, and
from the fact that both words are listed. Can "vem" alone take an object?
Perhaps. But I certainly don't know what that object is. I'm pretty sure,
though, that whatever that object is, it is NOT the person who is roused
from sleep by the action of the subject. If it were, we wouldn't need
{vemmoH}, and we know we have it.
Can {Qong} take an object? Maybe. In English we can say "I slept the
night away." Maybe you can in Klingon. Maybe in Klingon it would be
correct to say "I slept the hard bed," meaning that was the place I lay
while sleeping. Or maybe even perhaps "I slept the attractive officer,"
though the sleep/sex association is likely a bit too human to expect. But
the object would NOT be the person who is made to sleep by someone else:
that's what -moH is for.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM5bLacppGeTJXWZ9AQFmAAL+PaJjWZwKdyhbZL0GcUPsVjPekNVIB8FU
gXf9ZS2zhVRau/2wQNfyHu6z4vZCjazmEw6e+aaCMKC1/8OXUY+EkwQIqzqUF20a
gbCe48vATAIDOWU6e75MxUn4FKYtxoVI
=ofRh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----