tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 04 07:20:20 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon pleasantries
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:36:19 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
> >: can {chegh} be used as a transitive?
> >
> >No. {chegh} seems to be a verb of motion:
That's a presumption. Remember that in the context of typical
language, a rule is a formalized algorythm to explain observed
effects in the language. That's why rules have so many
exceptions in real languages. It is not that someone made the
rules and then the language has to follow them. It is that the
language did certain things and the rule is created to to
explain those things, and since the rule doesn't perfectly fit
all examples, the rule has exceptions. Language is not a totally
logical system. It is not always logically consistent.
Saying that {chegh} is a verb of motion and concluding that it
has to follow the new "rule of motion verbs" is missing the
point. The point is that there is a certain arbitrary set of
verbs that have this kind of relationship with locatives as
direct objects.
One part of this point is not that all verbs implying motion
follow this new rule. {vIH} is, after all, a verb of motion and
there is no indication in the interview that {vIH} can take any
object at all. Okrand rather explicitly said that it didn't.
More accurately, he said that the thing which is in motion is
the subject of {vIH} and not its object. He didn't say if the
location something was moved to could be the object of {vIH}. I
would be VERY hesitant to conclude that this was the case until
I saw an example in canon to confirm this.
I don't think {chegh} is a verb which has the same relationship
to a direct object that {ghoS} or {jaH} has. I could be wrong,
but I DEFINITELY think that anyone concluding that {chegh} DOES
have that kind of relationship to a set of nouns indicating
destination would have a rather weak case.
This is why I asked Okrand about every verb of this type that I
could think of. I recognized that membership in the group of
{ghoS}-like verbs is arbitrary. I wasn't looking for a generic
rule that would explain which verbs fit this pattern. I was
looking for a literal list of such verbs.
I knew I would not be able to think of all of them, but I don't
feel too bad. I think I covered a useful collection of them and
got them nailed down enough to help us use the language.
> And as such one would expect it to follow the rules given in Okrand's
> interview. Nope.
You are trying to reduce the Klingon language to Vulcan-like
logical constructions where every peg has a hole for it and
everything neatly fits into a set of rules which have no
exceptions. I suggest that is not how it works. Okrand never
wanted it to work that way. If he did, he'd be less flexible to
take in all the Paramountisms and other inconsistencies. He
knows that natural languages have arbitrary inconsistencies and
he intentionally adopts some of these to make Klingon more like
a natural language. He doesn't go to an extreme and make
everything so chaotic that it becomes impenetrable, but he also
doesn't make this a language computers can translate very easily.
You are more than a computer likely ever will be, so you should
be able to handle these arbitrary points when they arise.
> > ghorgh pa'wIjDaq jIchegh?
> > When can I return to my room? CK
>
> Note that this SHOULD be (according to the interview) {ghorgh pa'wIj
> vIchegh} or {ghorgh pa'wIjDaq vIchegh}.
Yep. It does look like that using the logic appropriate to verbs
like {ghoS}, his example says that the returning is an action
that occurs in the room, instead of it being the destination of
the action, which is what you want it to say.
Meanwhile, consider that {chegh} could have a meaning closer to
{paw} than to {ghoS}. Until you arrive in the place you are
returning to, the action of returning doesn't happen, if this is
true. You don't arrive until you arrive. You don't return until
you return. So, where do you return? You return in your room.
All this means is that {chegh} may have a different typical
relationship with a locative than {ghoS} does. It may instead be
grouped with {paw}. Does that make it easier to swallow? I know
this may come as a shock to you, but just maybe Okrand is not
wrong in this example. {{:0>
> I'm really not liking this particular new rule, as it seems to violate one
> of the primary structures of the language upon which much canon was based.
> Perhaps we should pester Okrand to explain the inconsistency?
I don't see it as being inconsistant. Instead, I just see two
likely things:
1. There is an arbitrary set of verbs that has this kind of
relationship with direct objects. These direct objects relate to
locative concepts. The initial description of the behavior of
these verbs is in TKD describing the verb {ghoS} and it was
intentionally left open as to which other verbs fit this pattern.
2. The interview with Okrand clarified both which verbs belong
to this group, and more fully how these verbs are to be used.
The list of these verbs is not complete yet, but it now has been
expanded from a list of one verb to one of a dozen or so. That's
an improvement. Also, the usage is probably not cast in stone
and may be further expanded in the future, but the description
we have now is a lot clearer and more comprehensive than it was
in TKD.
Likely {jaH} has changed state over the years from being an
intransitive verb that doesn't act like {ghoS} to being a
transitive one that does, judging from an Email exchange I had
with Krankor over this. He said that he had confirmed with
Okrand years ago that {jaH} did not behave like {ghoS}, relating
to a specific example Krankor suggested. I can only suggest that
Okrand doesn't always, in every conversation, remember
everything he has ever said and remain consistent in all his
statements. He tries.
When I did the interview, I wanted to NOT trap him into any
inconsistencies. Instead, I wanted to give him lots of chances
to review his statements in the interview so whatever went into
the published work would have lots of opportunities for review
by him. So, he got the questions before we met and had a couple
months to think about it before the interview. Even a busy man
can use that much time well. We then had the interview. I taped
it and transcribed it. The tape ran out and I wrote the end from
memory. I sent him a copy and gave him a few weeks to review it.
He made suggested changes. I adopted them and sent him the
updated version for another review. He accepted them and they
got published. This reduces the likelyhood that a careless
comment would mislead people on what Okrand wants done with the
language.
If you think this "new rule" (which I see as a minor
clarification of something he described in TKD) is inconsistent,
I can only say that you and I have different opinions on this.
It is somewhat different than I expected, but seeing the old
description of {ghoS} from the perspective of the description
Okrand gave in the interview, I see it less that there has been
any fundamental change in the language than it is that a small
sidenote in TKD has now been clarified. That sidenote was easy
to overlook or misunderstand, but given the new description,
that sidenote explains something very useful to us now.
> SuStel
> Stardate 99090.8
charghwI' 'utlh