tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 06 10:08:53 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: transitive verbs
jatlh DraQoS:
> 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.
One of the problems with Klingon is this very thing: transitivity is not
indicated in the dictionary. That is, not ALWAYS. It does happen
sometimes.
Klingon is indeed not coded English. We must use the definitions given to
us by Okrand to their fullest. Consider such definitions as {ghuH} "prepare
for, be alerted to"; {chuH} "throw (a spear) at, hurl (a spear) at"; and
{DIl} "pay for." Notice how the prepositions required in English have been
included in the definitions? This shows us how to use them: it shows us
exactly what the object can be (and the fact that it can take an object at
all).
Okrand does this quite a lot. You see prepositions built into many of the
English definitions of the words. The reason for this, we have decided, is
that they are significant. They wouldn't have been included with the
frequency that they are unless they were important. Thus, logically, we
must assume that if their appearance is significant, their absence must be
too.
If Okrand has been this careful to provide prepositions in definitions to
demonstrate how the Klingon word works, we must assume that failure to use
one is still showing us how the Klingon verb works. Consider the verb {DIl}
"pay for." You can use it to say {taj vIDIl} "I pay for the knife" (or the
somewhat controversial {bIvum 'e' vIDIl} "I pay for your work." You cannot
use it to say *{cha' DeQ vIDIl} "I pay two credits." {DIl} means "pay FOR,
and thus we are shown by the preposition in the definition exactly what sort
of object it may take.
Now consider the verb {Hagh} "laugh." If we were to assume that you could
say *{HoD vIHagh} "I laugh (at) the captain," then we're (1) assuming we
know what the correct object of the verb is, when Okrand hasn't given us any
reason to believe that it is correct, and (2) invalidating our knowledge of
every verb which DOES have transitivity information built into the
definition.
(1) {Hagh} "laugh." If we assume, like with all those verbs with
prepositions in the definitions, that this verb also shows us transitivity
information, then we must consider how the DEFINITION (which happens to be a
single word in this case) works in English, and this is how it will work in
Klingon. "Laugh" does not take an object. This is our information. If
*{HoD vIHagh} were a valid sentence, {Hagh} would be defined as *"laugh at."
It is not. Do you see? We're not just considering the definition as the
English word "laugh," we're considering the English word "laugh" with an
explicit lack of any preposition. This word plus the explicit lack are both
part of the definition of {Hagh}.
(2) If we DID feel we had the right to assign an "at" part to the "laugh"
definition of {Hagh}, then we'd be admitting that all the verbs which DO
have additional parts in them have them for no reason. If I feel like
changing {Hagh}, why not change {DIl}? I'd be able to say *{cha' DeQ
vIDIl}, and it'd make sense. But it doesn't, because that's not how {DIl}
works.
I hope you see now why your sentence {qaHagh} for "I laugh at you" is
considered wrong. You decided arbitrarily that you wanted the object of
{Hagh} to be the person laughed at, when so such object information has been
provided to us in the definition of {Hagh}.
SuStel
Stardate 99848.7