tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 12 12:37:34 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Attending a school (was RE: Daq vIDabbogh vIchoH)

On 12 Aug 1999 17:38:06 -0000 [email protected] wrote:

...
> That's why I keep leaning toward a transitive {jeS}, though I keep
> disclaiming that I have no real grounds for it.  I just can't see how you
> can participate without participating IN SOMETHING, even if that something
> is unstated. 

Meanwhile, from another angle, I feel like the glosses are 
simply the closest Okrand can briefly get to an idea pointed to 
by each word. For all we know, {jeS} could be a stative verb. It 
could refer to being in a focussed, excited, prepared and 
intentionally acting state of cooperation. We might even be able 
to use it adjectivally, in which case it could NEVER take an 
object. We are all guessing when we interpret these glosses with 
no usage to go by. Look at how surprising {Dub} was.

I just pick the most likely guess, and in particular, I assume 
that any (in English) prepositional relationship between the 
verb and its direct object will be represented in the gloss with 
an appropriate preposition. This is not always the case, but it 
is the case more often than not. It is the case often enough 
that until I see usage to the contrary, I assume this to be true.

Hence, {jeS} does not have a preposition in its gloss, so I 
assume it doesn't take a direct object. Besides, {-vaD} is such 
a natural suffix to link between the act of participation and 
that which one participates IN.

> Other verbs are another question, each has to be considered
> on a case-by-case basis.  {qet} has some merit to be transitive, but it
> seems less strong to me than {jeS}. 

I think that is arbitrary. The meaning you are looking for is 
closer or farther from these examples because of your own 
perspective. To me, {jeS} creates no problem with no direct 
object. {-vaD} works for me. I'll be quite happy to begin using 
{jeS} with a direct object as soon as I see Okrand's example of 
its use in canon or hear him explain it.

> Actually, come to think of it, think
> about "run" in English.  It *CAN* be used transitively, but the object is
> NOT the destination!  We don't say "I ran the house" or "I ran the store",
> or rather we do, but that's a totally different meaning for "run" which
> isn't relevant here.  In the sense of "running" as in ambulating quickly we
> never use the destination as the object.  And yet we do say "I ran the
> race," and "I ran a four-minute mile," and "I ran all THE WAY back
> home"...

The whole point here is that each verb has a unique relationship 
with its direct object especially, and with its typical indirect 
objects as well, its subject and all of those words outside 
itself.

> It would seem we like to use the *route* as the object of "run",
> and not the destination (not necessarily everywhere; we don't say "I ran
> the street.")  I believe we have the {ghoS} may take the route as its
> object (He chu' yIghoS; HeDon ghoS), as well as the destination.

The only reason I see the destination as a direct object of 
{ghoS} is because the destination often identifies the path to 
get to it. I always think that the real direct object of {ghoS} 
is a course or path.
 
> ~mark

charghwI'

Back to archive top level