tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 26 20:56:17 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

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' lay'tel SIvten:
>Here are the definitions that I use of the three primary semantic case roles
>- agent, patient, and focus:
>(http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/lexical_semantics.html)

I don't see these terms as particularly helpful for someone who is learning
to speak Klingon.  They seem confusing and inappropriate in many cases.
For example:

  ravDaq paq chagh puq

Can you identify an agent here?  From your definitions, I'd guess that
{puq} is "the entity responsible for the event".  But in this example, the
next sentence is:

  'e' raD Qel

Now, unless I've missed something, the agent is {Qel}, since that's now the
responsible entity.

I'm not sure I understand your use of the terms properly -- and that's a
large portion of why I'm uncomfortable with them.  They don't appear to add
anything useful to the collective understanding of how Klingon works.

>Different verbs have different argument structures.

Maybe you see things in a more rigid framework than I do?  I could imagine
that an explanation of a word like {SIH} "bend" might be more concise if it
used the word "patient" or "agent" to describe its subject, but I still
have two problems with them.  First, they're bits of linguistic jargon that
most people don't know.  Second, and more importantly, Klingon is not like
Lojban, with its rigorously-defined semantic slots.  What's the patient of
the verb {tagh}?  The agent of {meQ}?  How about {pegh}?

>The subject of "hit" is
>an agent and its object is the patient, but the subject of "see" is a patient
>and its object is a focus.

Maybe that's true of "see", though I'm not convinced.  But is it true of
{legh}?  Who gets to decide whether a verb like {legh} or {Qong} has an
"agent" subject or a "patient" one?

>Thus the subject of "Doq" is a patient.  The subject of "HoH" is an agent,
>and the object is a patient.  "ja'" takes an agent and a patient (the
>listener).
> "jatlh" takes an agent and a focus (the utterance).

Says who?  Why is the object of {jatlh} a focus rather than a patient?  I
apparently don't have the same frame of reference as you do.

>...When the suffix "-moH" is added to verbs whose subject is a
>patient, the subject of the new verb is the agent and the object is the
>patient.

How do you know that's how it works?  The effects of {-moH} are a topic of
much discussion, and if you have a simple and consistent explanation that
stands up to comparison with canon, I'd love to read about it in HolQeD.  I
wonder how it applies to Skybox S20, {Ha'quj}:

  ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH

>The subject of some verbs is both agent AND patient, an agent-patient...

You're multiplying entities needlessly.  I see no added value in using
these terms.  I'm going to give a final comment then withdraw from the
discussion.

>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.

Klingon indeed gives special status to "verbs expressing a state or
quality".  Only they may act adjectivally.  Only they may be used in a
{law'/puS} construction.  Only they are compelled to have the {-'eghmoH}
suffixes when used with an imperative prefix.

But I *still* don't see any difference in the essential roles of the
subject of "verbs of quality" and simple intransitive usage of "verbs of
action".  jIQub.  jIba'.  jIghung.  jIQong.  jISop.  jIwuQ.  They all seem
to work the same way to me.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level