tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 12 17:23:53 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Attending a school (was RE: Daq vIDabbogh vIchoH)
>Mailing-List: contact [email protected]; run by ezmlm
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:36:21 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
>Priority: NORMAL
>X-Authentication: IMSP
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>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.
A valid point, though for "the state of preparedness for participation",
"participate" is such a piss-poor gloss even Okrand should blush for using
it. Remember, I can't make any cogent arguments against anyone who opposes
a transitive jeS, and I said so at the outset.
>> 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.
Yes, it is arbitrary. It's based on my own experiences and biases and
concepts of what I think the words do/should mean. And I make no claims
(at least in this case) for those being objective or even convincing to
anyone else.
>> 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.
Ayup.
>> 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.
I view it the same way myself, and use that view to influence my usage of
ghoS, when transitive and when with -Daq (I really try to have at least
some slight thought of "route" in mind when using it transitively) and even
sometimes coloring my understanding of it when others use it.
~mark