tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 25 16:06:22 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Using object prefixes with "intransitive" verbs
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Heather Myers wrote:
> We already have a word for "expect": <pIH>. TKD says <loS> means "wait
> (for)", and <pIH> means "expect" or "be suspicious". Please don't
> reinterpret the Klingon words from an English standpoint; they're
> Klingon words. Stick with what we've been given. There's nothing wrong
> with using these words the way they're defined. <loS> doesn't need to
> mean "expect" because <pIH> already means that.
I think you misunderstood my point. There is admittedly a general problem
in Klingon in that we only tend to get a single word definition in English
-- and in English, most words have multiple meanings.
The question was about what verbs were transitive and which were not. The
example given was /loS/ "wait (for)". The problem being that in English
"wait" is an intransitive verb, which is why the preposition is always
"for". However, in English, the concept of "waiting for" is synonymous
with the English "expecting".
What makes things confusing is that in English "expect" has multiple
meanings itself.
Now, you bring up a good point, Klingon already has /pIH/ for "expect",
but we do have a synonymous use for "be suspicious". Personally, I would
be inclined to believe that /pIH/ is actually a transitive verb more
likely to be translated "suspect", rather than "expect", but I agree with
your point about not trying to retranslate various words, and so I won't
go any further other than to put it out there as a suspicion. :)
The point being, however, that there are Klingon words that have imperfect
English translations, due to the fact that single English words are often
not sufficient to accurately convey what the intended definition should
be.
/loS/ is transitive, but we know this because the definition is
specifically "wait (for)". For /pIH/ we actually have TWO translations,
one intransitive, one transitive... What does this really mean, though?
Are they homophones, or is this just a (bad) example of a verb that can be
translated differently in English as a result of being used in a
transitive or intransitive fashion?
The further confusing bit about /loS/ is what exactly the parenthsized
note means. Perhaps /loS/ is actually intransitive, and the note is
distinguishing its definition from its other various definitions, such as
"to work as a waiter or waitress". I believe that's not the purpose, that
it really means the verb is supposed to be transitive, the object of which
would be similar to using the English "expect":
/De' vIloS/ == "I'm waiting for the data."
"I'm expecting the data."
Of course, if /loS/ is intransitive, then the above does not work, one
would want /De'vaD vIloS/, which is more specifically "I'm waiting, for
the data."
I favor /De' vIloS/, and I have proposed that an appropriate English
translation, using a similarly transitive verb, would be "I'm expecting
the data."
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it." -- Alan Kay
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}