tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 30 22:47:25 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghoj (was: Re: Klingon Poetry for College (2nd attempt)
ja' ~mark:
>moH mIw, HIja', 'ej taQ je. motlh, mu'tlheghvaD DIp chellu'DI', choHbe'
>mu'tlhegh DIpmey Qu'. ta'taH ta'wI'; SIQtaH SIQwI', etc.:
>[...]
>choH pagh DIp Qu'. Qu' chu' neH chellu'. etc...
>
>
>
>'ach chutqoq Daqelbogh wIqelDI', jaS wanI':
>
> "mang HoHmoH HoD"
>
>HoH mang; HoH mang 'e' qaSmoH HoD: meq ghaH HoD'e'.
DuHbej, 'ach 'utba'be'.
> "DujDaq mang HoHmoH HoD"
>
>HoHtaH mang'e'; meq ghaHtaH HoD'e'. DaH Daq vISov. choH pagh. 'ach...
>
> "wo'vaD mang HoHmoH HoD"
>
>chutqoq wIpabchugh, pay' choHqu' DIp Qu'. DaH HoHbe' mang! mang HoHlu'!
>'ej DaH HoH wo''e'. Hujqu', 'ej tlhIngan pab, *logic* je bIvlaw'.
{-vaD} yIpIchQo'! {-moH} yIpIch. DIp wa'DIch ngoQ pImmoHbej {-moH}'e'.
>===
>
>In English, briefly....
>
>I think the most telling point is really the consistency and logic that is
>broken by the "-vaD" rule. Normally, if you add a noun to a sentence, the
>roles of the other nouns don't change. In the "paq vInob jIH" example
>above, as each noun is added, *I* remain the giver, no matter what, and the
>book remains the thing that is given, no matter what. I can add a
>recipient, a reason, a location, a source... but each time, the nouns
>already there don't change their basic roles. But in the "mang HoHmoH HoD"
>example Krankor uses, according to the "-vaD" rule (or
>demoted-subject-demotion rule?), adding the "-vaD" noun to the sentence
>suddenly drastically changes the role of the object. No longer is the
>soldier the one doing the killing, now he is the one being killed! And his
>role as killer is usurped by the newcoming noun. No longer does "HoHmoH"
>mean "SUBJECT causes OBJECT to kill," it now means "SUBJECT causes OBJECT
>to be killed by INDIRECT OBJECT" (or "SUBJECT causes INDIRECT OBJECT to
>kill OBJECT"). That's a pretty radical change, unlike anything logic or
>Klingon grammar would suggest.
What you're calling the "{-vaD} rule" might not be the culprit. {-moH}
does rather a good job of changing the role of the object all by itself.
mang HoH HoD
mang HoHmoH HoD
By the "standard" interpretation, the object changes from *receiving* the
action of the verb to *doing* the action. I think THAT is the odd thing,
and I think it's quite possible that it's something like a shortcut that
only applies when there is no explicitly stated indirect object.
>And Krankor points out that this is an
>isolated example.
It's not as isolated as it seems. {pong} has been seen to work a lot like
the example of {qawmoH}, and I think the definition of {tuQmoH} in the
dictionary (from 1985!) strongly supports the "{-vaD} rule".
>His analysis of what is going on in this example doesn't
>have to be right (though it is interesting, and might for all we know be
>right), but he shows that there are enough *possible* other ways to look at
>it that it hardly constitutes evidence for a very unexpected and
>counter-logical rule.
I'm more interested in how {-moH} manages to change the role of the object
in the first place, especially when used on a normally transitive verb. A
simple analysis without knowing more details about {-moH} has a very shaky
foundation. I find the putative "{-vaD} rule" to be more logical than the
straightforward absolute interpretation of {X HoHmoH} as "make X kill".
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh