tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 25 20:13:11 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: action verbs vs. qualities

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

jIghItlhpu':
>I think this might have something to do with a distinction between agent
>(one who causes an action) and patient (one to whom the action is done),
>rather than subject and object. An intransitive verb like {jIQong} has an
>agent. A stative verb like {jIDoq} has only a patient. As I see it, {-ta'}
>refers *only* to sentences that have agents.

ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI':
>I don't see that the distinction you're making between instransitive and
>stative verbs is important.  Grammatically, {Qong} and {Doq} are both
>verbs.  As with all verbs, the subject of the verb does what the verb
>describes.

Yes, they are both verbs; however, they *do* behave differently. If you want 
to say "Sleep!", you can just say {yIQong}. But if you want to say "Be 
red!", you'd say {yIDoq'eghmoH}. True, we're told it's not strictly 
ungrammatical to say {yIDoq}, but then, it's not ungrammatical to say 
{Doqghach} either. :S

>The terms "agent" and "patient" are undefined in Klingon grammar.  If you
>want *me* to accept such jargon the way you're trying to use it, you'll
>have to give me compelling evidence that the subject of a verb like {Doq}
>is fundamentally different from the subject of a verb like {Qong}.

As I said above, it's not strictly defined in the grammar, but the 
distinction between {yIQong} and {yIDoq'eghmoH} is the evidence I present. 
Weak it may yet be, but we are told in KGT that bare imperatives with 
stative verbs are weird. However, {yIQong} is fine.

That aside, all I intended "agent" to mean was "something that causes an 
action". When we say {Doq} about something, we don't mean it causes itself 
to be red. It just *is*. The thing that has caused it to be red might be 
something entirely different. And I'm not really trying to say "Klingon 
distinguishes agents and patients in its grammar" (although that might be a 
presupposition of my theory). I'm just trying to present one reason why 
{-ta'} looks odd to some people when it appears on stative verbs. To take 
Voragh's quote from TKD:

   This suffix is similar to {-pu'}, but it is used when an activity
   was deliberately undertaken, the implication being that someone set
   out to do something and in fact did it. (p41)

If I actually "set out" to be red, for instance, wouldn't {jIDoq'eghmoH} be 
far more likely than just {jIDoq}?

>In order to save time, I will pre-emptively present the concept of 
>blushing.

bIDoq'eghmoHta''a'? {{:P

>-- ghunchu'wI'

qavan.

QeS lagh

_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:  
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail

Back to archive top level