tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 26 11:20:40 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus

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

From: <[email protected]>

[snip explanation of agent, patient, and focus]

> Seen this way, it's misleading (at the very least) to say that all verbs
are
> actions.  There are different kinds of verbs.  Some are actions and some
are
> states.

I don't think anyone will disagree with this statement.  The question is,
was Okrand thinking about this when he used the word "action" in describing
the suffixes {-lI'} and {-taH}.  I doubt it.  Where he says "action," he
means "verb."

Let's look at some of his uses of this word in TKD that make my point:

Page 28: {-vaD}: "This suffix indicates that the noun to which it is
attached is in some way the beneficiary of the action, the person or thing
for whom or for which the activity occurs."

This talks about "action" and "activity," so it should only refer to action
verbs, right?  Then why is his example sentence, {Qu'vaD lI' De'vam} "This
information is useful for the mission"?  Surely, {lI'} "be useful" is a
quality, isn't it?  It's used as one in CONVERSATIONAL KLINGON: {wa'maH
yIHmey lI'be'} "ten useless tribbles."  It's used adjectivally here, and TKD
p. 49 tells us, "A verb expressing a state or quality can be used
immediately following a noun to modify that noun."  We have never seen an
action verb used adjectivally.

Page 32: "Each Klingon verb begins with a single prefix that indicates who
or what is performing the action described by the verb, and, when relevant,
who or what is the recipient of that action."  What?  Prefixes are only used
for actions?  A whole lot of canon has probably broken that one.  This is
repeated on page 33: "The prefixes in the first column of the chart . . .
are used when there is no object; that is, when the action of the verb
affects only the subject (the "doer").

Page 36: Type 2 verb suffixes.  "Suffixes of this type express how much
choice the subject has about the action described or how predisposed the
subject is to doing it."  This would seem to deny the use of Type 7 suffixes
on verbs of quality.  Should {bIHoSnIS} "You need to be strong" be an
illegal construction?

Page 40: Type 7: Aspect.  "The language does, however, indicate aspect:
whether an action is completed or not yet completed, and whether an action
is a single event or a continuing one."  This would suggest that only action
verbs can take Type 7 suffixes.  Really?

Page 55: 5.4. Adverbials.  "These words usually come at the beginning of a
sentence and describe the mannter of the activity."  So adverbials can only
modify "activity"?  Action verbs?  {chaq jIQuch} "Maybe I'm happy" is
illegal?

Page 56: {neH} "Unlike the other adverbials, it follows the verb which it
modifies.  The semantic effect is one of trivializing the action."  I can't
say {jIQeH neH} "I'm merely angry"?

Page 59: OVS: "The subject [of a sentence] is the person or thing doing the
action described by the verb; the object is the recipient of the action."
So only action verbs work with OVS word order?  What do quality verbs do?
Okrand is here *defining* the terms "subject" and "object."  Surely, when a
careful linguist like Okrand defines terms, he does so correctly.  When he
says "action," he must *mean* "action," right?


There are plenty more examples of the word "action" in TKD, and it's
abundantly clear that when Okrand says "action" he means "verb."  As an
English-speaking linguist, Okrand is used to saying "action" to mean "verb."

There are most certainly differences between verbs of quality and verbs of
action.  Those differences are not made clear by Okrand's description of the
grammar in TKD.  There is no basis on which to claim that {-ta'} or {-lI'}
can only be used on action verbs.

SuStel
Stardate 4401.8

Back to archive top level