tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 20:14:17 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:08:56 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' charghwI':
> >The grammar changes when the verb is transitive or intransitive.
> >Deal with it.
> >
> >If you think otherwise, explain yourself better.
>
> I do think otherwise, but I think I reached the limit of "better" in this
> particular debate quite some time ago. If I were again to explain the way
> I think {-moH} works in general, we would just end up repeating ourselves,
> and we really don't need to subject everyone else to that. :-)
I'll try to do better this time.
> I'll just ask you to consider the verb {Sop}, which is often used either
> with or without an object. How would you understand these sentences?
> For the sake of argument, assume a Qa' is talking. :-)
>
> jISop
I eat.
> qaSop
I eat you.
> qaSopmoH
I cause you to eat.
> targh qaSopmoH
I cause you to eat a targh. [This assumes that you are using the
prefix shortcut and this sentence is more grammatically correct
as: {SoHvaD targh vISopmoH} which better fits the canon example
Okrand gave us.
> targhvaD qaSopmoH
I cause a targ to eat you. That is the only valid translation I
can see. It fits the grammar Okrand has shown us. No other
translation does.
> Only one of them doesn't make any sense to me,...
Which one?
> ... and another seems to
> suggest two possible meanings, based on whether I'm considering a
> transitive {Sop} or an intransitive one.
I don't understand why you think we'd be using one indirect
object indicated by {-vaD} and another one indicated by a prefix
shortcut with no direct object. That would be highly irregular.
> Since transitive verbs
> like {DuQ} can generally be used without an object, I do see a real
> potential for ambiguity in a word like {qaDuQmoH}.
Unless there is a direct object, I can only interpret this as "I
cause you to stab".
> Especially when
> the beneficiary is something like {tIq}, which usually doesn't have
> the ability to stab anything.
If the "beneficiary" is {tIqvaD}, then the grammar given us
translates this as "I cause the heart to stab you." As weird as
that seems, that's the only translation I can come up with. I
don't think it is very meaningful and to my ear, not even all
that poetic, but that's just how the words fall.
> >The "older" interpretation was OUR interpretation, not HIS,
> >unless you are talking about INTRANSITIVE verbs plus {-moH}.
> >There are no "older" examples of Okrand using it the other way.
>
> I think the dictionary entry {tuQmoH} is at least a partial example.
I think I need a better explanation of your point. I don't want
to reject it without understanding it better. I generally
respect your opinion and I'm having problems seeing where you
get this idea.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI' 'utlh