tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 25 20:57:53 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: action verbs vs. qualities
ja' QeS lagh:
>Yes, they are both verbs; however, they *do* behave differently.
In English, "red" is an adjective. The phrase "be red" is fundamentally
different from the verb "sleep". They behave differently because they are
grammatically dissimilar...*in English*.
However, I don't see a relevant difference in their behaviour *in Klingon*.
Maybe it's just that I have no experience with the "agent" and "patient"
terms you're using, but the way I read them doesn't don't seem to fit the
grammar. I'll repeat myself: the subject of the verb does what the verb
describes. If there's a difference between that concept and the concept of
"agent", it's not obvious to me.
>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
Nor is it ungrammatical to say {yIQong'eghmoH}. I'd go so far as to say
that the {-'eghmoH} construction makes as much sense on {Qong} as it does
on {Doq}.
>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.
Everything you say about "agent" and {Doq} here applies just as well to
{Qong}, does it not? I still don't see a relevant difference.
>If I actually "set out" to be red, for instance, wouldn't {jIDoq'eghmoH} be
>far more likely than just {jIDoq}?
If I actually "set out" to sleep, I'd be far more likely to say
{jIQong'eghmoH} than just {jIQong}. Even in English, it would come out "I
put myself to sleep" rather than "I slept." The supposed agent/patient
distinction still doesn't seem to make any difference.
-- ghunchu'wI'