tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 26 13:40:00 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]) 

Okay, there are some things I wanted to say about both SuStel's reply and 
ghunchu'wI''s, so bear with me:

jIghItlhpu':
> >Yes, they are both verbs; however, they *do* behave differently.

jangpu' ghunchu'wI':
>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.

Think of "agent" this way: anything that is the subject of a verb that uses 
{-moH} is an agent. Anything that is the direct object of a verb that uses 
{-moH} is a patient. Beyond that, the distinctions get a little blurry 
sometimes...

jIghItlhtaH:
> >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.

jangqa' ghunchu'wI':
>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.

jangpu' SuStel:
>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.

You've hit the nail on the head, SuStel. In {jIQong}, the subject (I) is 
just about always the agent of the sentence. If the subject is not the 
agent, one would be more likely to say {vIQongmoHlu'} "I was caused to 
sleep". See above: by definition, the subject of a {-moH} verb must be the 
agent of a sentence.

ghItlhtaH SuStel:
>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."

Okay, agreed.

taH:
>When I say {jIQongta'} "I have slept (and that was my goal)," it's
>pretty obvious that "I" am both subject and agent.

That was part of the point I was trying to make: that the use of {-ta'} 
requires the verb to have an agent. But, stative verbs don't seem to have an 
agent (because their imperatives use {-'eghmoH}, which is an agent-forming 
suffix), and so I still think that {jIDoq'eghmoHta'} would be more likely 
that {jIDoqta'}. But maybe the fact that {-ta'} implies an agent means that 
{-'eghmoH} is unnecessary here.

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

jangtaH SuStel.
>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.

Sorry, I've neglected to put the proper suffix on those verbs: wouldn't 
{jIDoq'eghmoHta'} be far more likely than just {jIDoqta'}? Or would the 
implied agent of {-ta'} be sufficient here?

In any event, thanks for the discussion, SuStel and ghunchu'wI'; while I 
don't know whether I have things sorted in my own mind yet, your opinions 
mean a lot to me. Savanqu'.

QeS lagh

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to   
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail

Back to archive top level