tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 26 21:02:24 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: RE: Sentence really as object



On Mon, 26 May 1997 18:59:30 -0700 (PDT)  David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Stardate 97399.3 mujang charghwI':
... 
> > Or what if {neH} is caught in an evolution between being the 
> > second verb of a Sentence As Object construction and becoming a 
> > verb suffix. It's function nearly fits {-qang}, except that for 
> > its full versatility, the person doing the wanting needs to be 
> > independently specified from the subject of the first verb.
> 
> > > Here's the sentence again, with some explanatory marks:
> > > 
> > > DaHjaj (verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH.
> > 
> > But notice how little the meaning changes if you change this to:
> > 
> > (DaHjaj verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH.
> 
> Actually, this changes it a lot.  It's a bit hard to see using this example, 
> so let me try another:
> 
> pe'vIl (verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH
> (pe'vIl verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH
> 
> These are quite different: the first says I do the wanting forcefully, the 
> second says the killing is done forcefully.

Meanwhile, what I really intended to convey is that you can't 
have the first meaning. In the original or this one, I see 
adverbials as applying only to the main verb, not to {neH}. The 
same goes for time stamps. I see the {neH} as almost a suffix on 
the main verb, so it doesn't have available to it full verb 
status with all the adverbials that the main verb has.

I can think of instances where I may have a thought that would 
naturally lend itself to that, like "I slightly want the Klingon 
to kill the Ferengi." {loQ} would be a natural here and it makes 
a lot more sense to be applied to {neH} than to {HoH}, so maybe 
it could work, though I don't feel good about it. In your 
example, I definitely think {pe'vIl} belongs to {HoH} and not to 
{neH}. Otherwise, I'd just use {neHqu'} and forget {pe'vIl} 
entirely. I could recast my {loQ} example:

verengan HoHchugh tlhIngan jIyonlaH. Or something similar. I 
just don't like the idea of adverbials applied to {neH} in this 
kind of setting. I see it from an English headset, but from a 
Klingon one, I see the language functioning quite well without 
it and somewhat vaguely with it. I don't like that kind of 
vagueness when it is not needed, and in this case, it just 
misses the flavor of the construction as I've come to understand 
it.

> > In most cases, these have the same meaning. Meanwhile, I get a 
> > strong sense that if there were a way to fit a verb prefix onto 
> > a verb suffix, the language wants this to become:
> > 
> > DaHjaj verengan *HoHvIneH* tlhIngan.
> 
> I suspect that if {neH} were to become a suffix, it would drop the prefix and 
> act like {-qang}:
> 
> DaHjaj verenganvaD tlhIngan *vIHoHmoHneH* jIH.

Uppercase Weird. [tweak]. Ooookaaaay. I guess my brain can 
stretch that far. [flip, flip, flip] I have to adjust the 
vertical hold a bit. So, is the DaHjaj applied to the root verb 
here or the suffix? Methinks it is the root verb, qar'a'?
 
> I don't know exactly how this would work, of course, but I think you'd be 
> forced to lose a subject you had previously. 

That's why I think {neH} moved toward being a suffix but never 
made it, and likewise never will. It's like there is a filter 
through which second verbs in Sentence As Object constructions 
pass through on their way to becoming suffixes, and neH could 
not quite pass through. It didn't bounce off, like most second 
verbs, and it didn't pass through like most suffixes. It got 
stuck in the filter.
 
> > In this way, the verb {neH} can never really own an adverb or a 
> > time stamp or aspect. This idea is what rationalized for me the 
> > inability for {neH} to take an aspect marker in this useage.
> 
> Agreed with the first part for the purposes of this speculation, but I doubt 
> the second part.  It's not just {neH} that cannot take an aspect marker; no 
> second verb of a Sentence As Object can.  These certainly aren't undergoing a 
> change into suffixes, since just about any transitive word can be used there!  
> Since {'e'} and {net} second verbs cannot have an aspect, I don't believe that 
> {neH}'s similar prohibition can be explained by the evolution idea.

Ahh, but you see, I think ALL second verbs live in that space 
between being a normal verb and being a suffix to the first 
verb. It is just that {neH} lives closer to being a suffix than 
the others. A suffix can't have a prefix or an adverbial or an 
aspect. {neH} can have a prefix, but it can't have an adverbial 
or an aspect. Other second verbs can have both prefixes and 
adverbials, but they can't have aspect. Normal verbs can have 
prefixes, adverbials and aspects. It is a continuum and {neH}'s 
spot on that continuum is unique.
 
> > I 
> > believe that the only reason {neH} has not become a suffix is 
> > that need to independently assign the subject to {neH}.
> 
> That would be a good reason for this consideration.

Wanting is different from other verbs. It is almost adverbial in 
and of itself because when used as a second verb, there is no 
thing you want. You want the action of the first verb (or at 
lease SOMEONE does). Desire's attachment to the root verb is 
like willingness, which is a suffix. It is not like seeingness 
or thinkingness or expectingness or all those other suitable 
second verbs. It's bond to the first verb is closer to being an 
appropriate suffix, except for this necessity of assigning a 
subject to the desire which is unrelated to the subject of the 
first verb. It is also not a fixed other subject, the way {-neS} 
is always attached to the listener. {neH} needs a prefix, so it 
can't be a suffix, but it doesn't need {'e'} because it has 
taken that half step toward being a suffix.
...
> > > If he's saying this:
> > > 
> > > reH (DIvI' Duj vISuv) vIneH,
> > > 
> > > it makes perfect sense.  
> > 
> > Ahh, but for a Klingon, it also makes sense as:
> > 
> > (reH DIvI' Duj vISuv) vIneH.
> > 
> > "I want to always fight a Federation ship."
> 
> But that *doesn't* make sense.  He doesn't want to fight a Federation ship 
> forever.  The {reH} quite clearly applies to the wanting, not the fighting, so 
> I don't think your grouping makes sense.

I see no difference between always wanting to fight and wanting 
to always fight. In either case, any time you are not fighting, 
you are wanting to fight. There is no quenching of this desire 
to fight unless one is always fighting. See? On the surface, 
these seem different, but at the root, the net result is exactly 
the same.
 
> > Actually, what I believe it REALLY means is, once again:
> > 
> > reH DIvI' Duj *vISuvvIneH*. "Always I want-to-fight a Federation 
> > ship." I see it as very similar to {reH DIvI' Duj vISuvqang.} 
> > The similarity is easier to see because the subject of wanting 
> > and the subject of fighting is the same entity.
> 
> I see this, though I think the sentence means "I am always willing to fight a 
> Federation ship," and not "I am willing to always fight a Klingon ship."  

I'll ignore the traitorous change of object here and point out 
that again, this is an arbitrary and not altogether meaningful 
distinction. Think about it:

Yesterday, I was willing to fight a Federation ship, but I 
didn't. I was still willing to, though. Today, I was willing to 
fight a Federation ship and I DID fight a Federation ship, 
though by doing so, I have not stopped being willing to fight a 
Federation ship. If I fight Federation ships every day from now 
to eternity, I will never cease to be willing to fight 
Federation ships, so even if my English speaking mind wants to 
think that "always" applies to the willingness, the fact remains 
that I am willing to always fight Federation ships. See? Always 
willing to fight Federation ships is exactly the same thing as 
willing to always fight Federation ships.

English, with all its helping words has a grammar that wants to 
distinguish between these two meanings. Klingon sees through 
this arbitrary and imaginary distinction and speaks the truer 
statement by applying the adverbial to the root verb!

> The 
> first looks like (I think)
> 
> reH [vISuvqang]

Your argument sounds like you want it to be [reH] vISuv[qang].
 
> and the second is
> 
> [reH vISuv]qang
> 
> and I don't think the second one is right.

And I don't think the first one is right, and furthermore, I 
don't think it matters. The net meaning is identical either way.
 
> > So, do you find THIS theory interesting?
> 
> Interesting?  Yes.  Convincing?  No.  While I'm not convinced about my own 
> hypothesis, it follows *my* gut feelings about Klingon.  (So who's got the 
> more clever gut?)

reH lugh charghwI' net Sov.
 
> And, of course, watch some new canon prove us *both* wrong!  :)

I'm always ready to accept that.
 
> -- 
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 97401.9

charghwI'
Stardate 97402.1





Back to archive top level