tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 20:24:18 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
transitive verbs
I was going to let this pass, however I found charghwI'wIj
recent post rather insulting in parts and felt that I had to
respond. And since he posted in public, I feel I must do
likewise. This started when I asked how can you determine
whether a verb in tlhIngan Hol is transitive or
intransitive. I still do not have a complete answer.
It appears apparent from charghwI'wij post, that since the
English definition is a transitive or intransitive verb,
then the resulting tlhIngan verb is also. This despite the
repeated reminder from many that tlhIngan is not simply
"coded English". That the definitions are a one-to- one
match and not simply as close as can be explained to English
speakers. None of the verbs in either the TKD or the KGT is
identified as anything other than verbs, and the rules of
syntax do not prevent such construction as "qaHagh" which
left me to wonder such a construction would mean. The only
conclusion i could think of was "I laugh (at) you."
charghwI' challenged where I got the (at) at.
It is well known that tlhIngan Hol does not use articles,
such as a, the, at, etc. And that such distinctions are left
to the affixes. In light of the fiction that the language is
a "warrior's tongue", such a construction makes sense to me,
as the briefest possible meaning. The "you" in the above
example is still the recipient or beneficiary of my
laughter, of my actions. As to whether it should be "with"
you or "at" you is dependent solely on the motivations of
the target, of the you in the example. That would have to be
determined by context, and is largely irrelevant to the
action. I am still laughing at you, whether you did
something funny on purpose or not does not change anything
except your possible response to my laughter. Besides, ram
meqmey.
Rather than "simply making things up", as charghwI' charges,
my thinking on the meaning of the phrase "qaHagh" is based
on the above. As Okrand does not identify verbs as either
transitive or intransitive, I have insufficient evidence to
suppose that those linguistic concepts mean the same or even
exist in ta' Hol. charghwI' himself provides an example of a
verb (Dub) that was previously thought to be intransitive,
but was later used by Okrand in a transitive manner.
On charghwI' side, he states that there is insufficient
evidence that such a construction is legal or meaningful to
tlhIngan jatlhwI'. And I would agree, that there is
insufficient evidence on either side. As it is not a common
usage and most would be confused or ignore such a
construction, on that, he has a point. And in order to
clarify whether such a construction is legal or meaningful,
I thought such a discussion would be valuable. Both to my
study of this language as well as to the language itself.
But apparently instead of seeing this as a difference of
opinion and treating it as such, charghwI' turned it into a
personal attack on my seriousness in my studies. Why he felt
the need to do so, I will leave to him to explain.
I admit that my reason for learning this is based on the
accomplishment of specific goals. I would like to provide
something of value to the tlhIngan speaking culture, namely
the translation of several works. I do realize that I must
first learn the language, one would have to be a fool not
to. That is why I ask questions, post (bad) translations and
hope that some will be willing to tell me where I go wrong.
But I do not expect to be insulted, by having my seriousness
questioned. For those that do, I will elaborate.
The Klingons were a fictional race created for a television
show. I say was, because there are many out there to who the
culture resonates to such an extent, that they are more than
willing to adopt the clothing, attitudes, morals, even the
language of this mythic culture. And there is alot to this
culture to be admired. Many of you are Klingons in heart and
spirit, if not physical features. (Some of you even go so
far as to alter your features to those of Klingons) While a
couple of science fiction writers (or their fans) have
founded churches based on their works, this is unique in
that a full culture is started based on an author's ideas.
In short, (too late) I find, due to my background, the
depiction of honor and warriorhood by Paramount bordering on
blasphemous lies. I find the adoption of such an inaccurate
view unfortunate by the fans, but born due to ignorance
rather than intent. There is no draft, so few people learn
about war first hand. (And it can be argued that there is no
other way to learn about war) As so I feel they need an
alternate opinion, such as those of Sun Tzu and others. I
would like to help, even if it is a small part. While I have
a lot of respect for those involved in the KBTP, and
understand the linguistic significance, from a cultural
perspective, it does not seem very useful. As part of a
great Rosette Stone of all the earth's languages, it has
value. But I don't see it speaking to Klingon culture. I do
not see it needed by those who are or would be Klingons at
heart.
That I have only recently started learning tlhIngan Hol
seriously, I do not deny that. I have played around with it
for a number of years, but had no motivation. Without
motivation, nothing is accomplished. Now I have a
motivation. That may sound gradious, some may even find it
silly. But either this culture stands or is another fad
destined to oblivion. Either her people are recognized as
honorable, decent people or "mad dogs" and "weirdoes". As
true warriors or predictable bullies.
Now that is why I am serious about learning this. While I
respect charghwI' in his skill and knowledge, I do not
appreciate such attacks, from him or anyone else. If this is
the way you treats a potential (if such a neophyte as
myself) then I begin to wonder about your own motivations.
Do you want others to learn or decide that the only ones who
speak tlhIngan Hol are bullies. Do you want blind obedience
to your word? Or do you want others to understand this
language? Do you find my willingness to defend my point of
view a personal assault of some kind? Or is it simply a
matter of my newness to this that brings out this behavior?
If you are trying to teach me, then that is an ineffective
tactic. It does not instruct, it offends. It indicates a
lack of respect for another opinion. And that makes me lose
respect for you, and less willing to listen. Also, by
resorting such a personal manner of attack, it makes it
appear that your own position is weak. If you cannot keep
your discussion on topic, it is highly probable that you
have no ammunition.
If you are attempting ot browbeat me into simply accepting
your views as gospel, well, I hope I have demonstrated that
is not going to work. You cannot convince someone of
something against their will. They have to want to agree
with you. Insulting them does not generate that willingness.
You are more likely to get the kinds of response such as
this.
You question my knowledge and understanding, that is one
thing. You question my motivations, my honesty, or my honor,
well that is different. And has no place in this mailing
list, or in a lingusitics discussion.
Ben (DraQoS)