tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 29 09:14:24 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Using object prefixes with "intransitive" verbs

cheesbro ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

> > <pa'lIjDaq yIjaH!>
> Find the HolQeD in which this is explained by Okrand (6:4?).


Below is the portion of the interview about -Daq
HolQeD 7:4  December 1998

>>>
WM: You've already mentioned about some special relationships between
    verbs and direct objects in Klingon that would not necessarily be
    typical to English, for example {ghoS}...

MO: {ghoS} is a very interesting verb.

WM: Oh boy. Is it. My personal sense of {ghoS}, just trying to figure out
    what in the world all those different definition segments are
    pointing towards, is that {ghoS} would be to follow a path associated
    with the direct object.

MO: Yes. That's good. I've never heard it phrased that way, but that's
    good.

WM: So, typically, the most common thing you'd associate with a path is
    its destination, but it doesn't have to be. It could be its source.

    Now, the usage that I've seen most commonly is that we'll use just
    the noun if it is the destination, but we'll use {­vo'} on the noun
    when we are moving away from it. Would that be typical Klingon
    usage?

MO: Yes. The short answer is yes. [Trademark mysterious smile.]

WM: You said that you can't always judge by the definitions as given,
    that you can't always tell as to whether something can be transitive
    or not. There are certain things that are very similar to {ghoS} that
    some of us are very tempted to use in a similar way. Things like {bav}
    - "orbit."

MO: Yes. I would do that.

WM: Then there are some that some people are tempted to, and others
    really don't like, like {jaH} - "go."

MO: Here's the way {jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology
    both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I go in
    the river."

    I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the river. You can also
    say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}...

WM: You'd still use the ­Daq?

MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {­Daq} or no
    {­Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI­} means I'm
    moving along in someplace. {vI­} means I'm moving along to
    someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}.

WM: At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.

MO: Right.

WM: {bav}

MO: You don't need a {­Daq}. Just use whatever it is that you are orbiting.

WM: {Dech} - "surround."

MO: Same thing.

WM: {ngaS} - "contain."

MO: Same thing.

WM: {vegh}

MO: [laughs] Yes. "To go through." Same thing.

WM: {'el} - "enter."

MO: Same thing. Now, if you did say {pa'Daq vI'el} "I entered into the
    room," you could say, well, that's overkill, but that's okay.

    It's not like, "Oh, my God, I don't understand you," but you don't
    need that.

WM: In the dictionary, you said that {ghoS} could be used either with or
    without {­Daq} but it would be somewhat marked with the {­Daq}. Is
    this true for {jaH} as well?

MO: Less marked? Yes, the same, with the {vI­}, not with the {jI­}.

WM: {leng} - "roam, travel."

MO: {leng} works like {jaH}. These are all okay:

    {yuQ vIleng} or {yuQDaq vIleng}
    I travel to the planet

    {yuQvo' jIleng}
    I roam away from the planet

    {yuQDaq jIleng}
    I roam (around/about) on the planet

    This is not okay: {yuQ jIleng}

WM: {paw} - "arrive."

MO: Again, just like {jaH}, it depends. {Duj vIpaw} means "I arrive at the
    ship;" {DujDaq jIpaw} means "I arrive on the ship," that is, I arrive
    via the ship or something like that. And it would probably be okay
    to say {DujDaq vIpaw} for "I arrive at the ship." But {Duj jIpaw}
    strikes me as odd.

WM: If you think of any other {ghoS} like verbs... Those were the only
    ones I could come up with.

    Two other verbs that are interesting in terms of whether you would
    use {vI­} or {jI­} are {Sum} and {Hop}. Like {raS vISum} or {raS vIHop}.

MO: Okay. This opens up a whole new issue. You see, there's this thing
    called "deixis." This is the idea that an utterance is made at a
    specific time and place, and certain words or grammatical elements
    are interpreted correctly only by reference to that time and place.
    So the same word may refer to a different real­world thing
    depending on who's speaking, where, when, and so on. Like in the
    statement "I am here," where is "here?" It has to do with where you
    are when you make the statement. And who is "I?" "I" is Marc if I
    say it; it's Will if you do.

WM: And when somebody writes that on a blackboard and then walks
    away. It was true when it was written, but later...

MO: Yes. It's like the sign in a store window that says "Back in one
    hour." If there's no indication of when the sign was put up, how do
    you know how long to wait? It's the same in regular conversation.
    You don't speak in a vacuum. There are elements in the speech
    situation to let us interpret utterances correctly. Usually, anyway.

MO: Using the verbs {Sum} and {Hop} involves this concept.

WM: So I could not say {raSvam vISum} to say, "I am near the table."

MO: No. You'd just say {Sum raS}. The verb {Sum} implies that the speaker
    is the one the subject is near at the time of speaking.

    {Hop jabwI'}.
    The waiter is far <from me> right now.

WM: Well, that resolves the conflict otherwise created if they could take
    objects. It keeps them stative, so you can say, {HIvje' Sum yItlhap}.

MO: Yes.

WM: Otherwise, they'd be the only verbs we'd sometimes use as
    adjectives and other times use transitively.

MO: Take an object. Yes.

WM: So, could that deictic anchor be shifted by using an indirect object?
    Like if I wanted to say, "You are near the table," could I say {SoHvaD
    Sum raS}?

MO: No. You'd use {­Daq}: {SoHDaq Sum raS}. This throws the orientation
    away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener
    (marked, stated: "at you, where you are"). But you don't always
    need to state this overtly. Context is critical. For example:

    {qagh largh SuvwI' ghung. Sum qagh 'e' Sov.}
    The hungry warrior smells the gagh.
    He/she knows the gagh is nearby.

    The only interpretation of this (absent other information) is that the
    warrior knows the gagh is near the warrior, not the warrior knows
    the gagh is near the speaker of the sentences. If context isn't clear,
    you can clarify:

    Question: {Sum'a' raS?}
              Is the table near (me)? (Am I near the table?)

    Answer: {HIja'. Sum raS.}
            Yes. The table is near (you).
    or
    Answer: {ghobe'. jIHDaq Sum raS.}
            No. The table is near me.

WM: And could I say {maSumchuq}?

MO: No. You'd just say {bISum} or {SuSum}. If you haven't, in the course of
    the conversation, set things up otherwise, it's assumed that the
    event being talked about is taking place where the speaker is. In fact,
    {jISum} alone probably would make no everyday sense to a Klingon.
    "I am near me." But it does have an idiomatic philosophical sense,
    something like "I'm in touch with my inner self" (but in a Klingon
    sort of way, of course).
<<<


DloraH

Back to archive top level