tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 07 09:01:09 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: transitive verbs
David Trimboli wrote:
A lot of good stuff snipped for brevity.
> 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.
No, not at all. I am not talking about dropping things from
the definition. It is where there is insufficient data in
the definition that I start to wonder. And I worry that
accepting the verbatum definition as all there is, you are
simply encoding English. It is a more elaborate code than
simple word replacement, but ends up being just a more
sophisicated code. (We could get off on a tangent about how
language is nothing more than the symbolic representation of
concepts anyway, and as such is a “code”. But that would be
a tangent.)
Nor am I trying to make an arbitrary rule. I would not have
been seeking clarification here if that were the case. As
has been pointed out, only Okrand can make the rules. If I
were to submit a rule for his rejection or acceptance it
would be something along the lines of “qaVerb” is the result
of or my response to “choVerbmoH” and thereby combines both
my response as well as your action. I would say “qaHagh”
meaning “I laugh as the result of you making me laugh”. You
could expand the rules to the other supposedly intransitive
verbs as well as the other two party verb prefixes.
But as charghwI’ pointed out, unless everyone knows what
that means, unless the rule has been approved and/or adopted
universally, then it does not communicate. And since the
whole purpose of language is communication, then that usage
does not work.
“Paying for” and “paying with” are two different concepts.
There is a practical difference between the two. You can
“pay with” your life, and thereby end up dead. Or you can
“pay for” your life, by paying a ransom or some such, and
thereby remain alive. The difference between these two
concepts is far greater than the difference between
“laughing at” or “with” someone.
A better example for you would be Qong (sleep). What would
qaQong mean? Would “I sleep you” mean “I am sleeping with
you”, (as opposed to nga’chug) or “you are putting me to
sleep” (and if so does this mean that you are boring or just
exhausting) or what? And each of these meanings are
different in the practical sense. So from what we have,
qaQong would make no sense whatsoever. (As to whether it
would make sense to a native of Qo’noS, I don’t know. It
might have one of the meanings listed above, or something
totally different.)
The closest example I have found so far is “qajatlh”. In the
KLI FAQ, it is noted that this is translated as “I speak
(to) you” and “implies a friendly shove to get your
attention.” Which in the context of what this all stems from
would make a lot of sense. However there is a slight bug in
that argument for my side in that the example specifically
says that the “you” in qajatlh is the indirect object. So
the question here becomes can a verb that cannot take an
direct object be used in such a manner? (Or can you laugh
something like you can throw a ball?)
Okrand did not indicate whether verbs are transitive or
intransitive in any of the things I have seen to date, such
as the TKD and KGT. He did this because a) the concepts of
transitive and intransitive do not exist -as such- in ta’
Hol. Or b) he felt that such overly technical material would
hurt sales, and he never dreamed that some shlub would be
arguing this point. And these are not mutually exclusive.
Ben (DraQoS)