tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 31 02:35:40 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Stative verbs (was something else)



David Trimboli wrote:
> jatlh 'Iwvan:
> > David Trimboli wrote:
> > > As I have pointed out, {wew} means "glow," not "be glowing,"
> >
> > What is the difference?
> 
> One is in TKD.  The other is not.

I meant the semantic difference.  By saying that something means
`glow' but not `be glowing' you imply that `glow' and `be glowing'
mean different things.  But I fail to see any difference between
__Stars glow in the sky_ and _Stars are glowing in the sky_, or
_Her eyes glow with indignation_ and _Her eyes are glowing with
indignation_.  So I wondered whether you did (I presume you are
a native English speaker; I am not).  Now I am pretty sure that
you don't either, or else you would have pointed it out instead
of making that gratuitous remark about _tKD_.

> > Is there any reason to think that {wew} `glow' doesn't express a state?
> 
> Yes.  Because it expresses an action.  Something glows when it emits
> photons which reach the eye.

The entry for _glow_ in New Webster's also contains such stative-looking
definitions as `be lustrously red or brilliant' and `be excessively hot',
but I take it that those are secondary meanings.  But what about {boch}?
Does it not also denote emitting or reflecting light?

> Also, I cannot think of any verbs in Klingon which could work
> adjectivally, unless their TKD entry is preceded by "be."

How about the ones which indicate a physical position ({ba'}, {Qam},
{Qot}, {tor})?  Their English glosses in _tKD_ don't contain _be_.
And then there's {wuQ}.  And {taH}.  I'm not going to claim that
they can be used adjectivally, but they are all pedigree stative
verbs.  The rest follows from _tKD_ 4.4.

I'll grant the fact that the vast majority of stative verbs whose
glosses don't contain _be_ are transitive ({muS}, {par}, {rur}, {Sov},
{wuv} etc.), and although we're not told that transitive stative verbs
can't work adjectivally, that may cause syntactic complexities.

> Elsewhere, someone suggests {Qong} is also a state.  I say there is
> a great deal of difference between "sleep" and "be asleep," and the
> difference is shown exactly here.

Where is it shown?  _The New English-Russian Dictionary_ sitting on a
shelf just next to me glosses _sleep_ and _be asleep_ in the same way
(_spat'_).  Whatever the difference is, it can hardly be that great.

  `I saw you take his kiss! -- 'Tis true.
   -- O modesty! -- 'Twas strictly kept:
   He thought me asleep:  at least, I knew
   He thought I thought he thought I slept.'

This is Coventry KD Patmore (1823-1896), who obviously did not find
_slept_ considerably different in meaning from _was asleep_ or _was
sleeping_.

> Do you think {Qong} is stative?

Yes.  As stative as {rop}, which also denotes a physiological condition,
and can also be translated with or without _be_, as in `ail' or `be ill'.

> How about {pum} "fall"?

No.  _The tree fell at 3am_ and _The tree was falling at 3am_
mean different things.  If a tree is falling, it hasn't fallen yet.
There are many other criteria which distinguish events from states.

> Can it mean "be falling"?

No.  `The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action
is not completed and is not continuous' (_tKD:40).

> How about {Hegh}?  {HoH}?  {jach}?

Not those either.

> Why would Okrand forget just this one?

What did he forget?  You seem to be assuming that he was consciously
adhering to a policy of using _be_ in the English glosses for all
stative verbs, but not for any others (and he was perhaps ambivalent
about those for which both _be_-glosses and _be_-less ones are given,
as {boch}, {SaH}, {'oy'} or {'uH}).  I see that as a consequence
of the fact that in contemporary English intransitive states are
very frequently expressed by adjectives, not as evidence of any
design on MO's part.

--'Iwvan

-- 
"reH Sov yInej 'ej Dap yImuS,          <dOstI bA mardom-e dAnA nEkO-st,
 jagh val qaq law' jup QIp qaq puS"     do^sman-e dAnA beh az nAdAn dOst>
                 (Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski                             <[email protected]>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria <http://www.math.acad.bg/~iad/>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences


Back to archive top level