tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 07 08:57:13 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: transitive verbs
There are just a few points I feel a need to respond to.
Several of these points are addressed in a reply to David.
Alan Anderson wrote:
> [Speaking of "insulting", you do know that saying {charghwI'wIj} is
> highly derogatory, don't you? See the next-to-last paragraph on page
> 25 of The Klingon Dictionary.]
That was an error on my part and unintentional. And I
apologize for that.
> It's not actually certain that "the rules of syntax" do permit {qaHagh}.
> In the explanation of verb prefixes on page 33 of The Klingon Dictionary,
> Okrand chooses {Qagh} as an example. The possible prefixes for the verb
> are listed, and that list includes only the "no object" prefixes. It is
> strongly implied in the next paragraph that {Qong} never has an object.
> I believe that {Qong} and {Hagh} behave similarly.
Actually I had taken the list as abbreviated for space
rather than complete.
>
> >The only
> >conclusion i could think of was "I laugh (at) you."
> >charghwI' challenged where I got the (at) at.
>
> I think his challenge was perfectly justified. You presented an idea
> which was not obvious from the words you gave.
The challenge to the idea I don't mind. It was more the tone
that caused me to respond. What I saw as an insult was the
reason I felt further defense was necessary.
>
> >It is well known that tlhIngan Hol does not use articles,
> >such as a, the, at, etc.
>
> "At" is not an article. It is a preposition. It specifies location.
> In tlhIngan Hol, the "at" meaning is carried by the noun suffix {-Daq},
> or included in specific verbs like {ghoS} or {Dab}, or associated with
> special nouns like {naDev} and {Dat}.
Okay as I understand it, -Daq is locative -only-. So you
would end up with laughing in your general direction
(location the target is at) than you personally.
> If you want "you" to be the recipient or beneficiary, why not use the
> grammatical tool that is supplied for such meanings? The noun suffix
> {-vaD} indicates exactly what you want.
Originally, I saw -vaD ad "for, intended for" so "SoHvaD
jIHagh" would translate as "I laugh for you" which again
what not apparently what I wanted. (Note past tense)
> But you're still assuming that the object of {Hagh} is the thing toward
> which the laughter is directed. It could just as easily be the thing
> which caused the laughter, or even a noun which resembles the laughter,
> as in "I laughed (like a) hyena" or "I laughed (like a) drunkard." But
> since the verb is defined for us simply as "laugh", it's a good bet that
> it never has an object at all.
Good point. But there is already the simile rule from the
KGT.
> Fine. Ignore the words "transitive" and "intransitive" and focus instead
> on what the role of the object is in the sentence. In most cases, we've
> got pretty good clues from the simple definition Okrand gives us. When
> the idea is something that doesn't translate using a single English word,
> the definition tells us how it *does* translate. {DoH} "back away from"
> and {baH} "fire (torpedo, rocket, missile)" indicate what the object is
> supposed to be. {Hagh} "laugh" uses an English word that doesn't have an
> object, so we assume that the Klingon word doesn't have one either.
This may be a case of to prevent falling off one side of the
boat, I fell off the other. To prevent if from simply coding
English, I extrapolated too far the other way.
> I also must admit that I didn't see a lot in what charghwI' wrote that I
> would consider to be a personal attack. That might be because I agreed
> with it, but I think it's because he *wasn't* attacking you personally.
Perhaps I may have overreacted a bit. I still think that
such attitude is detrimental to motivating newbies or
correcting others. You can end up killing a person's
motivation, of giving him reason to assume that the attempt
is hopeless, and there is no one worth talking to. Of giving
him ample cause to abandon the whole mess.
>
> One of the curses of having reached a high degree of skill in the language
> is that it's not always easy to see things from the point of view of the
> newcomer who hasn't yet had the language "click" in his brain. Defending
> the way we use tlhIngan Hol from well-meaning but off-target students is a
> constant process. You're apparently at a point in your studies where you
> believe you know enough to assume things based on your intuition, so we're
> going to seem a bit arrogant and stodgy to you until your understanding of
> how the language works gets to the next level. It's very hard for me to
> imagine this sort of thing happening in other languages. It's a shame it
> happens regularly with Klingon.
>
And again, arrogant and stodgy are not going to accomplish
what you want to accomplish. It endangers the growth of this
language.
> tagha' rIn. pItlh.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
Ben (DraQoS)