tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 26 06:32:28 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: action verbs vs. qualities

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

From: "Alan Anderson" <[email protected]>

> 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}.

Both sides of this are correct in some ways.  There *is* a practical
difference between action verbs and quality verbs in Klingon.  QeS lagh
points out that quality verbs require {-'egh} and {-moH} when used
imperatively.  ghunchu'wI' shows that action verbs can use these suffixes
too, but the point is that the quality verbs *require* them; action verbs
don't.  {yIQong} "sleep!" is an acceptable Klingon word, *{yIDoq} "be
red/orange!" is not.  Yes, you can say {yIQong'eghmoH} "make yourself
sleep!" but you don't *have* to.

> >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.

I think I see what QeS lagh is getting at.  If I say {jIDoq} "I am
red/orange," "I" am the subject of the sentence, but I may not be the agent.
I may not have made myself red/orange.  So if I say {jIDoqta'} "I am
red/orange (and that's what I set out to be)," the meaning of {-ta'} implies
an agent, and the agent must be me.

I'm with ghunchu'wI' on this one, though.  That {-ta'} implies that the
subject is also the agent isn't a problem: it's part of the meaning.
Further, in {jIQong} "I sleep," I see no reason why "I," the subject, must
also be the agent.  {SIp vItlhuHmo' jIQong} "Because I breathed the gas, I
slept."  When I say {jIQongta'} "I have slept (and that was my goal)," it's
pretty obvious that "I" am both subject and agent.

I don't see any difference here.  There *are* differences between actions
and qualities, but this isn't one of them, and Okrand wasn't making this
distinction in most of THE KLINGON DICTIONARY.  Usually, when he says
"action," he means "verb."  And in Klingon, "being something" is just as
much a verb as "doing something."

> >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.

Agreed.  Just because I set out to be red/orange doesn't mean I'm interested
in talking about setting out to do something.  {wa'Hu' jIQeH'eghmoH.  DaH
jIQeHta'} "Yesterday I made myself angry.  Now I have accomplished being
angry."  Setting out to do something and completing a goal are not the same
thing.

SuStel
Stardate 4401.2

Back to archive top level