tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 19 11:40:47 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: some tidbits qororvo'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 11:04:00 -0800 (PST)
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
>
>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> I think another point to be made is this feeling that somehow there
>> NEEDS to be a verb for "to be afraid" (OK, Klingon does have Haj and
>> ghIj.  But still).  It is significant that -vIp is a suffix and not
>> a verb: it shows that in Klingon the emphasis is placed on the result
>> of fear.  Specifically, you can't just "fear" in a vacuum: you have
>> to be afraid to do something in particular.
>
>Not necessarily.  You can be afraid of doing something (which is what
>{-vIp} is for), or you can be afraid of someone else doing something
>(which is when the full verbs come handy).

>> [...] (it would be even more interesting, and still quite believable
>> in a language, for there to be no verb Haj: if *all* fear was fear of
>> doing something.)
>
>Ah, but it isn't.  Even fear of being killed can't be expressed in such
>a way, since Klingon has no passive.

To be sure, Klingon does not fully work the way I'm imagining, since it
does have full verbs like Haj and ghIj.  However, I could easily see it or
another language managing fine without, anyway.  I could see a language in
which fear can only be expressed actively, with the most passive way of
doing it something like "afraid of experiencing one's murder" or something,
making it at least the partly active concept of "experiencing."  I think
the fact that Klingon has -vIp at all does indicate a certain bias towards
viewing fear as something connected with active actions.  Or even a certain
philosophical view of fear.  Why is fear so disliked by Klingons?  Maybe
because it prevents you from doing things.  "HaghvIp" means "he/she is
afraid to laugh," implying that (unless I say otherwise, e.g. "'ach
Hagh...") he/she doesn't laugh.  This might be one way of interpreting the
purpose of having fear as a suffix: that it is generally regarded as
connected with action, and specifically (by implication) with preventing
action.  I could even see a language where you really couldn't talk about
fear except in the context of action, since if the fear has no tangible
result, who cares?  (OK, that may be a little extreme to expect of a
language and still have it usable).  Still, it's an interesting model to
consider; I rather like the connection of -vIp with action in Klingon.

>> Just like in Klingon you can't "need" in abstract, you have to
>> "need to do something" with -nIS [...].
>
>Still, there are alternative ways of expressing necessity, in case
>you need someone else to do something.

Which I might argue is a qualitatively different kind of necessity.  I
suppose one could imagine a language where such things are recast into "I
need to 'see' you rot in jail" (not necessarily literally observe it
visually).  And I'm not sure even that would be stretching things too far.
How can I "need" something that affects only someone else?  In what sense
is it *I* that needs it then?  If someone needs something, that person must
be materially involved in the something (or so AN argument could go.  I
know full well that many languages don't see things this way).

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMzBBNsppGeTJXWZ9AQE4AgL/YP6SKYmfMZIMsvko3oSjxPnD9nwj7aiH
nKLah4lYKpOuveeBrG06jDkGYza54dbJMuHtLMJBoZYUhLehxzwYtZpX3qMr5vya
Yq/aZn8b2tQekBJeLb/XTPi4+Y1xHZ71
=JYxv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level