tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 07 20:11:17 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KGT confirmations
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KGT confirmations
- Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 23:11:35 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:12:09 -0700 (PDT) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] on behalf of qoror wrote:
> > ghItlh SuStel
> > >In most cases, I believe the canon definition to be a good measure of
> > >transitivity. Not in every case.
I agree completely. We take as much as we can from the
definitions and then we take more from canon when it is
available and we remain flexible to the possibility that
something needs to be adjusted in our understanding of each
verb.
The classic example for me is {Dub}, which most of us took to be
intransitive, but multiple canon examples consistently use it
transitively and there are no examples of it used
intransitively. ~mark pointed this out first.
Okrand did not notate transitivity in the dictionary and has
avoided the issue intentionally (whether he did so initially by
intent or simple omission) to give himself the widest leeway,
recognizing the impact of his own errors if he forgets something
he earlier wrote about a verb. Besides, it would be a monsterous
hassle for him to have to go back and notate transitivity on
around a thousand verbs, and here he is giving us an opportunity
to feel what it is like to be a linguist studying a language
when there are aspects of the language which are not documented.
When he studied dying Native American dialects of the southwest,
he did not have dictionaries and grammar books. He had a few old
people to interview before they died. To a certain extent, he is
giving us that opportunity to figure things out on our own.
But having nothing noted about transitivity in the dictionary
does not mean that the language does not functionally
include transitivity. Clearly, each verb has a finite set of
acceptable nouns that can grammatically serve as direct object of
that verb. For some verbs, that set is empty (e.g. tIn). These
are intransitive. Those which can or must have objects are
transitive. Many verbs can have objects, but do not require them.
Take the example {ghom}:
TKW page 184:
(trans:) rut yIHmey ghom Hoch.
Everyone encounters tribbles occasionally.
TKD p170:
(intrans:) tachDaq maghom.
We will meet in the cocktail lounge.
There's no question that this verb works both transitively
and intransitively. The second example is not {tachDaq
maghomchuq.} It is just {tachDaq maghom.} Words like this can be
used transitively or intransitively.
Many verbs really are transitive, but can be used grammatically
as intransitive as their object exists, but does not need to be
specified (e.g. Sop).
> > Well, things like {moH} and {bol} make absolutely no sense as taking an
> > object; I won't say "transitive" here, because, as Krankor stated, it's
> > likely a non-issue. It would just be weird. I think the topic here isn't
> > transitivity, but sensibility.
>
> Transitivity is indeed the issue. ~mark's classic example is the verb {Qong}.
> How do we know that it can't take an object? What if the object is the thing
> you sleep on? Or the length of time you sleep?
Well, until we are shown what the object is in canon, I have no
reason to even be curious about transitive uses of {Qong}. As
far as I'm concerned, it is intransitive until proven
transitive. Daydreaming about what might serve as an object of
{Qong} in the absence of any canon useage or description of it
suggesting such an object seems like a very unKlingon activity.
It is a waste of time. Don't go there.
> Similarly, before KGT, how would we know that {bol} cannot take an object?
> Suppose its object was the body part that one's drool ended up on? Or the
> amount of saliva that one allowed to leave the mouth?
Well, we can never finally KNOW anything about language, but the
degree of certainty I've had for the intransitivity of these
particular verbs has been strong since my introduction to them.
We do need to adjust these things from time to time. Most if not
all of us were initially wrong about the appropriate objects for
verbs of speech, for example. We saw the light and now, we
understand these verbs better. Not perfectly. Better.
> Now, of course, we get Okrand telling us flat out that a couple of verbs which
> are defined in TKD with intransitive-seeming definitions do not take objects.
Great. I have not gotten that far yet in the body text. Still
wrestling with the word list and this mail piling up.
> This does not prove my point conclusively, but it does support the idea that
> the TKD definitions tend to be worded in such a way as to indicate what the
> correct object, if any, should be. (Notice that Okrand has been very careful
> to continue to do this in KGT.) There's also a structure in Esperanto which
> would fit in nicely in Klingon were it allowed (I don't happen to remember
> what it is; I don't study Esperanto), but the {moH} example shows that such a
> rule could not be applied in the general case. (It doesn't rule out
> exceptions, but you cannot derive exceptions, and therefore cannot say what
> they are.)
I support you in this.
> I happen to think Krankor is wrong: Klingon verbs DO have specific
> transitivity. Certain verbs CANNOT take objects, and certain others MUST take
> them (there's at least one in KGT; I can't remember what it is right now, but
> I'm pretty sure it's there), even if it's just "things in general."
Agreed. At this point, I'd argue that it seems that {Dub} cannot
be validly used intransitively applying to the self, unless we
get canon to the contrary. I similarly believe that {vIH} cannot
be used transitively, until I see an example otherwise.
> Whether Klingon linguists care at all about actually classifying transitive
> and intransitive verbs as such is something I can't speak to . . .
Agreed. I doubt that the term "transitive" is all that
meaningful to Klingon linguists, but the verbs definitely behave
in ways that fall into classifications of transitive,
intransitive and at least two kinds of "either" (that the
meaning changes from transitive to intransitive, like {ghom}, or
that there is a generalized object, like {Sop}.
> --
> SuStel
> Stardate 97676.5
>
charghwI'