tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 21 10:50:38 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {-vIp} (Re: some tidbits qororvo')

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

>Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 07:25:41 -0800 (PST)
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
>
>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> >From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>[simile]
>
>> >> I think the fact that Klingon has -vIp at all does indicate a certain
>> >> bias towards viewing fear as something connected with active actions.[...]
>> You can't be willing without being willing to do SOMEthing, so it makes
>> sense as a suffix.  Ditto readiness.
>
>And what counts as `doing something'?  Fighting?  Dying?  Being killed?
>Remember the Welsh chieftains who declared that they were willing to be
>ruled by a king born in Wales who spoke neither English nor French?  It
>doesn't seem to make any semantic sense to talk of being ruled as doing
>something.  In Klingon it doesn't make syntactic sense, either, whereas
>in English it does, because you can make the willing party the subject
>of the embedded clause.  It's all a matter of language-sensitive formal
>criteria.

Yes.  And by Sapir-Whorf (no relation to Worf) one would think this would
impinge somewhat on their outlook on the whole concept.  I know that strong
Sapir-Whorf is not generally accepted, but I think most people accept at
least weakened form of it.  ('Iwvan might mangle me for stating this wrong,
but in case you're wondering, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis basically says
that language constrains thought, at least in its strongest forms.  Weaker
statements say stuff more like "language and thought affect one another."
It's likely safe to say that if 'Iwvan disputes this explanation of the
Hypothesis, he's right.)

>> The next, less certain step of philosophy relies on the added
>> implication which I see (and maybe others do not) that "HaghvIp"
>> means "he/she is afraid to laugh *and therefore doesn't*".  I
>> don't see the same extension necessarily attaching to willingness
>> or readiness, (i.e. "he's willing to laugh", but may or may not
>> actually do it) but that's the only reason.
>
>I tend to see it in the case of readiness, though you may be right
>about willingness, in so far as it is possible to do something
>willingly or unwillingly.  You're right that in {HaghvIp} the fear
>may be seen as the reason for the non-occurrence of the action.
>What about {HeghvIp} then?  Does that also mean that he is afraid
>to die and therefore refrains from dying?  If so, what would you say
>if he has no control over his death, but is scared of the thought
>of that inevitable event?  (Hm.  DIvI' Hol jatlhlu'chugh, rap'a'
>_afraid to die_ _afraid of dying_ je?  DujwIj vIvoqbe'.)

Hmm.  Good point.  I would not find "HeghvIp" at all strange, but you're
right that there's no volition necessarily implied there.  It may depend on
the verb.

~mark

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

iQB1AwUBMzLYd8ppGeTJXWZ9AQHxeAMAlnsZS6ZNo3LTrzi3vn1IASy6hstfDR/v
YuZIo/z4xV0ad5NeJubj20KxpSSOQqEXaL7GBvAVafh8wfYsnEl9exQA8/B8L+1t
mrA9avPw1B/4gTi/XTPTUuSe3ML1kigb
=x2to
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level