tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 15 10:16:25 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: choH yabwIj

[email protected] on behalf of William H. Martin wrote:
> I feel like that for the sake of argument, you've distorted my 
> perspective into one that is easier to discount.

I'm not trying to "discount" anything.  I'm just saying that I never had a 
problem with intransitive {-lu'}, and I don't quite understand exactly why 
other people do.

> The description 
> of {-lu'} in the grammar section gave no mention of its use 
> without an object. All of the explanations included the prefix 
> using third person singular object with the roles flipped for 
> subject and object. Then, in the phrase section, we get 
> {quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'?}. No object. No explanation for how this 
> is supposed to work.
> 
> It also happens that when there is an object of the action of 
> the verb, the passive voice works nicely in translation, but 
> when there is no object, there is no way to translate it into 
> the passive voice. This is not the only reason I had a problem 
> with {-lu} on an intransitive verb. I had the problem because it 
> doesn't translate into passive AND it doesn't follow any of the 
> rules described in the grammar section.
> 
> If I missed something in the grammar section, please point it 
> out to me. qaqaD.

It's not what you missed in the grammar section, I think it's just that Okrand 
had to pick a translation, and used objects in the *translations*.  Consider 
one example on page 39:

Soplu'
someone/something eats it

This also means "someone/something eats," using the object as unspecified.  
Okrand probably chose to include the object in the translation because of the 
next section, which goes and puts the translations into the English passive 
voice.  Since you *can't* say "Someone/something eats" in English passive, he 
couldn't have used that as the translation even if he wanted to.

Page 38 states: "This suffix is used to indicate that the subject is unknown, 
indefinite, or general."  No ifs, ands, or buts.  The rest of it is an 
explanation of how the verb *prefixes* work, how verbs with {-lu'} are 
frequently *translated*, and how to use {tu'lu'}.  Nothing to do with the verb 
needing an object.

> Similarly, using {-moH} on transitive verbs apparently happens, 
> but there are no rules stated in TKD to explain it. And I'm not 
> sure, but I think that the intransitive {-lu'} has only one 
> canon example of its use, yet you are far more comfortable 
> accepting THAT unstated rule than you are with the transitive 
> {-moH}. You like one and dislike the other and there isn't a lot 
> of rationality to it.

There is rationality to it.  In the case of {-lu'}, we are able to generate 
intransitive sentences from the rules presented in TKD; there's no explanation 
necessary, it all works out perfectly.  The *translation* is confusing, but 
that shouldn't be relevant to the concept of the sentence.  I can say 
{yInuD'egh} "Examine yourself!" even though we have never seen {nuD} take 
{'egh} before (that I can think of), but we can construct this according to 
the rules in TKD.

However, with transitive {-moH} verbs, there is no way to reconstruct the 
example sentence we have from canon using the rules in TKD.  The ONLY way we 
can construct these sentences is by first explaining WHY {ghaHvaD quHDaj 
qawmoH} works, and THEN saying "if this is a general rule, here's what you do 
. . ."

> It is just a personal preference, but you 
> take your personal preferences quite seriously.

Yes, I do.  My personal preferences tell me not to say {Sajatlh}, but I now 
know that I can.  My personal preferences tell me not to say {ghaHvaD quHDaj 
qawmoH}, but I now know that I can.  On the one hand, Okrand has given us some 
rules as to its use; on the other, we have one little example which may have 
other rules attached to it which we're not aware of, or could even be a type 
of some kind.  I do not tell others "don't do it," I try to keep them wary of 
it.  If Okrand said, "Yeah, that's exactly what is happening here.  charghwI' 
is right," then I'll gladly accept it   Until he does, {jImulchu'taH}.

SuStel
Stardate 97787.3

Back to archive top level