tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 19 01:37:09 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
two-way transitivity?
ja' SuStel:
>"Two-way" verbs:
>
>mev
>mev X
>X stops
>
>X mev Y
>Y stops X
>
>tagh
>tagh X
>X begins
>X tagh Y
>Y begins X
I can provide justification/explanation/rationalization for {mev} and
{tagh} actually being unremarkable verbs with specific "one-way"
transitivity. I can't claim with certainty that my interpretation is
correct, but I want to let everyone know what I like to think about them.
If we start with the idea that {tagh} is transitive and that the subject is
causing something to start, then {tagh X} is actually "X begins [doing
something unstated]". This is perfectly in line with the definition "begin
(a process)". A similar argument applies to {mev}, with {mev X}
interpreted as "X stops [doing something unstated]", although we have to
see the "cease" part of the definition as relevant only when there is no
stated object.
>So'
>So' X
>X hides
>
>X So' Y
>Y hides X
This one is more troublesome to dismiss as exceptional, yes.
>There are certainly more (/pegh/ and /meQ/ require lengthy discussions).
{pegh} for sure; that's a weirdness that I accept even while I wish it
didn't exist. :) But I think {meQ} can be debated (albeit weakly) as a
transitive verb, with the "burning house" phrase meaning not "house which
is on fire" but "house which makes things too hot".
>There are also lots of words we don't know about yet. (tlhe', DIng, for
>instance).
It's usually easier to assume they are reflexive/intransitive, and use
{-moH} to get the other possible meaning. As you say, though, we really
don't know yet -- {Dub} as transitive surprised many of us.
-- ghunchu'wI'