tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 27 18:28:45 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: action verbs vs. qualities

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

>From: <[email protected]>
>
>> > Why couldn't it be that the subject is the one *expressing* the quality?
>>
>> Because that's not what a patient is, by definition.  The patient
>> *experiences* the state.

ja' SuStel:
>You're doing exactly what ghunchu'wI' is pointing out: you're starting with
>the assumption that Klingon fits into an agent/patient/focus scheme, and
>deciding how the language works based on that.

It's worse than that.  He's using his conclusion to support the assumption.
That's circular logic, a major fallacy.

>There's an interesting bit in KGT (which I don't have with me) that explains
>that with some words (like describing food), a quality is not inherent in
>the subject, but rather is a description of the effect the subject has on
>someone...

KGT page 86:
                                      ...Translations such as
  "sour-inducing" ({Soj wIb}, "sour-inducing food"; {na' Soj},
  "The food induces saltiness") would perhaps be closer to
  the feeling of the Klingon, but they are a bit clumsy.

>So what's the agent/patient relationship there?  Does this thinking
>apply to all quality verbs, or just ones desribing food and music?  We don't
>know.

The comment in KGT comes in the context of food and "primary tastes".  I
wouldn't use it as a guide to analyzing verbs outside that context, but it
does provide concrete evidence that a simple analysis based on is deficient.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level