tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 31 10:41:05 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Stative verbs

jatlh ghunchu'wI':

> [What's the difference between "glow" and "be glowing"?]
> 
> ja' 'Iwvan:
> >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_.
> 
> I don't think there's necessarily a difference between the meanings
> when presented in English, but I certainly make a distinction when
> I'm considering the idea of a "verb expressing a quality or condition"
> as TKD puts it.  "Glow" is an action, not a quality.  We toss the
> term "stative" around here a bit loosely; real linguists already use
> it for a specific meaning, which isn't quite what TKD is describing.
> Perhaps we should start referring to "qualitive" verbs instead?

That's a good idea, especially most of my exposure to that word is from this 
list!

> "Stars glow in the sky" asserts that glowing in the sky is something
> stars *do*.  "Stars are glowing in the sky" likely means that they
> are in the process of performing that action.  But if we consider the
> "are glowing" to be a stative/qualitive concept, it can mean that the
> stars have that quality.

Precisely.

> >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_.

It was not meant to be offensive.  I was just parallelling something said by 
Data in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" upon Dr. Pulaski pronouncing his name 
with a short "a" sound, and then asking "What's the difference?"  Data 
replied, "One is my name.  The other is not."

Let's expand on dictionaries.  My dictionary (American College Dictionary) has 
"glow"; here's the verb section:

--v.i. 5. to emit bright light and heat without flame; be incandescent.  6. to 
shine like something intensely heated.  7. to exhibit a strong, bright color; 
be lustrously red or brilliant.  8. to be excessively hot.  9. to be animated 
with emotion.

Some of these are indeed phrased with "to be."

Now, two entries down, we find this word:

glowing   adj. 1. incandescent.  2. rich and warm in coloring; "glowing 
colors."  3. exhibiting the glow of health, excitement, etc.  4. ardent or 
impassioned: "a glowing account."   --glowingly, adv.

Now, it's been my experience that TKD words which can act adjectivally are 
translated into English adjectives with "be" in front.  I don't know the 
correct name for this use of "be."  If {wew} was meant to be used 
adjectivally, wouldn't it have made sense for Okrand to translate with the 
adjective instead of the verb?  {wew} would have said "be glowing," not 
"glow."  *This* is what I meant by "One is in TKD, the other is not."

> Does my distinction between "action" and "quality" make sense?

Yes it does, and this is what I was failing to express.

> >> 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.
> 
> Thus my suggestion that we either stop labeling Klingon verbs as "stative"
> or explicitly recognize that we're not using the accepted linguistic term
> quite right.  {wuQ} expresses a state, but can do most (if not all) verbs
> with an intransitive meaning.  However, TKD's description does *not* deal
> with states, but with qualities.

Okrand also talks about the no-object prefixes, which he calls pronouns, on 
Conversational Klingon.  These pronouns, says Michael Dorn, are used "to 
express states or qualities."  Since verbs like {Qong} are used in this 
section, it looks like Klingons *do* distinguish this particular group of 
words.  But, in TKD 6.6, Okrand writes that "any verb expressing a quality or 
condition may fit into the Q slot [of a law'/puS sentence]."  Is "condition" 
the same as "state"?  I certainly hope not, or else you'd be able to throw 
verbs like {Qong} in there.  Fortunately, he later says, "In comparative and 
superlative constructions, the verb of quality . . . must be said twice."  
This doesn't mention anything to do with states or conditions, so it looks 
like Klingon *does* make all of these distinctions.

Here's the really bad part: TKD 4.4 says, "A verb expressing a state or 
quality can be used immediately following a noun to modify that noun."  This 
would permit sentences like *{be' Qong} "the sleeping woman."  I feel quite 
certain that this is not what Okrand had in mind.

I don't think Okrand has been consistent.  In CK, we get the linguist's 
"stative," attributed to any verb which uses the no-object prefix.  (What 
would {vIQongmoH} be?  Probably evidence that Verb+{-moH} is an individual 
verb.)  In TKD, we get the sort of stative we've been using on the list, which 
really means "qualitative."

> >> 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'.
> 
> But the Klingon verb {Qong} means "sleep", certainly as much an action
> as "walk".  Do you think {yIt} is stative?  The answer to this question
> will help a lot in determining exactly what you mean by "stative".

If we can actually use CK's section on pronouns as linguistic evidence, then I 
guess any use of {Qong} with a no-object prefix must be stative, but not 
expressing a quality.  {yIt} would also be stative.  Of course, this 
definition of stative is so broad that it is hardly useful.

> >> 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.
> 
> You're taking a very narrow definition of "fall" here, assuming that
> it refers to the event of hitting the ground.  Consider instead what
> water in a river does as it reaches the edge of a cliff.  I'm ready
> to argue that "fall" can be as stative as "move", though there's not
> a "qualitive" character to that state.

I agree with this.  What's the difference between {jIpum} and {jIQong}?  
According to this reasoning, they are both stative, but not qualitative.  
Therefore, they can not be used adjectivally.

> >> 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).
> 
> "Be falling" isn't completed.  It also doesn't have to imply a
> continuing action unless you insist that "fall" is an action.
> How do you analyze the phrase "falling tree"?  Does not "falling"
> refer to a state here?  This phrase would be exactly analogous to
> using a Klingon stative/qualitive verb in an adjectival sense.

Except of course that my claim is that just because {pum} can be considered 
stative does not mean that it can be used adjectivally.

So, this brings us back to the problem word, {wew}.  Is it stative?  Yes.  Is 
it qualitative?  I say no.  If not, then it cannot be used adjectivally.  One 
can choose to use a qualitative verb as either an adjective or a relative 
clause, ({tlhIngan HoS} or {HoSbogh tlhIngan}), but one can use a 
non-qualitative stative verb only as a relative clause ({Qongbogh tlhIngan}, 
but not *{tlhIngan Qong}).

Do I really know what I'm talking about, or does this sound like I'm just 
spewing forth hot air?  It *seems* to make sense . . .

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97247.8

Back to archive top level