tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 19:20:17 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: understanding {-moH} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)

jIghItlh 'ej ghItlh charghwI':

>> <-moH> verbs are no different, I suggest. If we free ourselves from the
>> confusion of the title "no object prefix", we will know that there's no
>> reason to object to use of <jI-> on <ghojmoH>. We are not specifying >who
is
>> learning, no. We are not referring to the students. They are implied, as
>> teachers are not teachers without students. But would anyone suggest to
>> answer the question <chay' Huch Dabaj'a'?> by saying <ghojwI'pu'
>> vIghojmoH>??? Or <vay' vIghojmoH>? <vIghojmoH> alone even is
>>stilted - it
>> translates "I teach him/them". But that's not really needed to answer the
>> question, is it? Once we free ourselves from the illusion that seeing
>> no-object prefixes must mean that it will be translated into an
intransitive
>> verb in English, we can then use the prefixes effectively for
communication.
>
>And while you are at it, why not free yourself from the sense
>that you can't say, {vItIn}? Free yourself from wondering what
>QAO really would be translated as and just use it anyway. Free
>yourself from OVS word order. Grammar just gets in the way,
>anyway, right?

The difference is that it is clear that <vItIn> is nonsense without an
additional suffix. It is clear that questions as objects must conform to the
sentence as object regulations. It is clear that correct and verifiable
grammar is necessary for meaningful expression. It is not clear that
<jIghojmoH> is impossible. In fact, the paragraph I wrote illustrates that,
I think.

I don't think <ghojmoH> is a verb on its own. I feel pretty sure there. I
also am pretty sure that <jIghoj> implies that something is learned. It is
no harder for me to consider <jIghojmoH> as implying that something is
learned and there is an agent or agents who are caused to learn by, in this
case, me. Is this presuming too much? If I say <vIghojmoH> I am saying "I
cause him/her to learn" - how do I just say "I cause people in general to
learn"? <jIghojmoH> seems to work, and violates no rules I can see. Show me
how it does.

>I don't believe that it is often wise to "just free yourself"
>from basic grammatical understandings. We may be able to figure
>out why something which has been understood one way for a decade
>or so might have somehow been a misunderstanding that survived
>so many years of scrutiny. I tend to be slow to do that,
>especially when it has nothing to do with anything Okrand has
>explained to us or given us any example for.
>
>You may well be right about this, but please respect that the
>language has been around for a while now and nobody has seen it
>this way before and there is no canon to support it. I think
>caution is worthwhile here. I think it is a little fair to ask
>for a little time to consider this and examine it before "just
>feeling free".

Believe me, I have the utmost respect for those who have studied Klingon
before me. I do not want to tread lightly on their understanding of the
language. But, charghwI', without trivializing your opinions, I really would
like to hear the viewpoints of additional Klingon scholars more experienced
than I before I am told I am presenting a radical change to the language.

The "basic grammatical understandings" I am asking you to see beyond are not
at all basic understandings as I've experienced. I sense that it is usual to
allow that a "no-object" verb is not necessarily intransitive like <tIn> is,
for example. I say <jISov> but it does not mean I do not fight someone. I
say <jImaw> but someone must be offended to make it a true statement. What
is the difference between <jImaw> and <vImaw>??? That is exactly the kind of
difference I see between <jIghojmoH> and <vIghojmoH>. I offend in general, I
offend someone specifically. I cause people in general to learn in general,
I cause people in general to learn something specifically. Where is the
drastic change of thinking here? I recognize the difficulty we all have with
understanding precisely how <-moH> works in every situation. As for a 'leap'
of understanding, however, I honestly do not see it. I encourage you and any
others who have your experience and expertise with Klingon to point it out
to me.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level