tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 04 08:08:36 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:35:20 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I just want to focus briefly on two phrases.
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >> qaSopmoH
> >
> >I cause you to eat.
> >
> >> 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.
>
> I don't see why you don't accept simply adding a beneficiary to the
> {qaSopmoH} idea without drastically changing the intent of the phrase.
> Why do you deny that "I cause you to eat for the benefit of the targ"
> can be a valid translation?
>From what I've seen of Okrand's use and discussion of the prefix
shortcut, I sense a definite priority in terms of what is most
correct:
1. Most proper: {SoHvaD Doch vInob.}
2. Almost as proper: {Doch qanob.}
3. Not really as proper: {qanob}.
In other words, when there is an explicit third person direct
object, having a prefix "indicating" a first or second person
object is the core of the prefix shortcut. Klingon has few
redundencies, but the agreement of the direct object and the
prefix is one of them. When you break that agreement, you are
indicating an indirect object with the prefix.
If you don't have an explicit third person direct object, there
is no disagreement between the prefix and an explicit direct
object, so you don't have much of a reason to think the prefix
is indicating the indirect object. I could almost see Okrand
wince when he stretched things to allow the {qajatlh} that
Krankor had been using for years.
So, when I don't see any direct object, I assume the prefix is
indicating the direct object. When I see {-moH} and no noun in
front of it with {-vaD} on it, I assume that the subject
is the agent of causation and the direct object is the subject
of the root verb's action. That's the way Okrand has always
presented intransitive verbs with {-moH}.
He introduced the use of a noun with {-vaD} with a verb with
{-moH} with his one example of {-moH} on a transitive verb. The
subject of the verb with {-moH} was, as usual, the agent of
causation. The Direct Object changed roles and became the direct
object of the root verb, while the noun with {-vaD} became the
subject of the root verb's action.
The ONLY use of a noun with {-vaD} with a verb with {-moH} has
been that of a transitive verb with the {-vaD} applied to the
subject of the root verb and the Direct Object noun being the
Direct Object of the root verb.
Now, you want to make up your own grammar out of pieces that
ignore that one example we have of a noun with {-vaD} and a verb
with {-moH}. I don't follow. And THAT is why I can only
translate this example one way. I do it the way Okrand presented
it to us.
The exceptions you want:
1. We have a noun with {-vaD} in front of a verb with {-moH} and
you want to interpret it differently than the only such example
we have from Okrand.
2. We have a verb that can clearly act transitively and it has a
transitive-indicating prefix, and you want to assume it is being
used intransitively with the prefix shortcut, even though there
is no explicit Direct Object noun which can provide the
disagreement in person between the Direct Object and the prefix.
3. You want to have two different indirect objects tagged to one
verb, interpreted the way you want it interpreted.
It's just too wide a stretch, especially when it is contrasted
with what I'm doing. I'm taking the only example we have from
Okrand with a similarly transitive verb and interpreting it the
way he did. The only exception I'm making to his example is that
his example had an explicit Direct Object noun and this example
doesn't. That's not much of a stretch. I prefer to stretch less.
> >> Only one of them doesn't make any sense to me,...
> >
> >Which one?
>
> {targh qaSopmoH} is right on the edge of making sense. The longer I
> look at it, the more sense it makes -- until just before it becomes
> sensible enough for me to accept, and then I lose it. I can't yet
> make the familar "prefix trick" work well with {-moH} this way.
The part that baffles me is that you have problems with the use
of the prefix shortcut here when there is a clear disagreement
between the second person prefix-indicated object and the
explicit third person direct object noun. THIS IS THE
DISAGREEMENT THAT MAKES THE PREFIX SHORTCUT WORK WELL.
You DON'T have a problem interpreting a prefix shortcut when
there is no explicit Direct Object noun at all. Meanwhile, there
is no disagreement then, and when I look at it, I don't see a
shortcut. I see an indicated Direct Object.
targh qaSopmoH = SoHvaD targh vISopmoH. It's that simple. That's
how the prefix shortcut works. Then we interpret what {SoHvaD
targh vISopmoH} means. From the one example we have from Okrand,
it means, "I cause you to eat the targ." That's pretty much
formulaic. It is odd. I won't argue with that. But it works.
Okrand's example shows a clear formula for how to handle a
transitive verb plus {-moH}.
> >> ... 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.
>
> They're not happening simultaneously. They are two different ways
> of interpreting a phrase. If you're talking about my eccentric use
> of "prefix shortcut" to describe how I view the way {-moH} works,
> be aware that I'm explicitly stretching the concept beyond the way
> Okrand has explained it. (I'm not contradicting anything he said,
> just proposing an underlying mechanism that generates exactly the
> same things he explained while also generating other things we see.)
But your mechanism has a clear flaw. The prefix shortcut is
known to work only with first or second person direct object
indicated by the prefix, disagreeing with an explicit third
person direct object. {bIQ vItujmoH.} "I heat the water."
Clearly, this is a valid sentence. {vI-} is not a prefix that
can be used as a shortcut to an indirect object. There's no way
that {bIQ} is the indirect object of {vItujmoH}. It is obviously
the direct object.
So, Okrand's grammar for transitive verbs plus {-moH} is not
related to the grammar for intransitive verbs plus {-moH} by the
prefix shortcut. You want that to work, but it doesn't.
In fact, the grammar is simply different for transitive and
intransitive verbs when {-moH} is involved. The same can be said
for {-lu'}. We just have to learn the grammar as it is and not
try to make it logically link where it fails to link.
> >> 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".
>
> But adding a beneficiary of "heart" changes your interpretation even
> without putting in an explicit direct object. That's the part I'm
> having trouble accepting -- that you completely discard the earlier
> interpretation when a {-vaD} shows up.
I do this because there is only one example Okrand has provided
us involving a noun with {-vaD} grammatically linked to a verb
with {-moH}. The grammar for this is simply different than the
grammar for a verb with {-moH} and no explicit indirect object
(noun with {-vaD}).
I went through a similar angst when I ran smack into
{quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'?} and went into mental convulsions trying
to logically connect this with all those transitive verbs plus
{-lu'}. I didn't spend quite so many years accepting that the
grammar is simply different, however.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI' 'utlh