tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 09 07:37:46 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD, bav
DloraH:
>In the recent HolQeD the first article is Donnelly and Qov discussing
>transitives. One thing they discuss is bav and both mention that we
>don't know whether bav is transitive or intransitive. This confused me.
>I thought bav was obviously transitive per MO, HolQeD Dec 98, p8.
In my notes for {bav} I have:
When asked about {bav}, Okrand said, "You don't need a {-Daq}.
Just use whatever it is that you are orbiting."
Here's the portion of Will Martin's interview with Mark Okrand about {?Daq}
in HolQeD 7.4 (December 1998) for those who haven't seen it before:
WM: You've already mentioned about some special relationships between
verbs and direct objects in Klingon that would not necessarily be
typical to English, for example {ghoS}...
MO: {ghoS} is a very interesting verb.
WM: Oh boy. Is it. My personal sense of {ghoS}, just trying to figure out
what in the world all those different definition segments are
pointing towards, is that {ghoS} would be to follow a path associated
with the direct object.
MO: Yes. That's good. I've never heard it phrased that way, but that's
good.
WM: So, typically, the most common thing you'd associate with a path is
its destination, but it doesn't have to be. It could be its source.
Now, the usage that I've seen most commonly is that we'll use just
the noun if it is the destination, but we'll use {vo'} on the noun
when we are moving away from it. Would that be typical Klingon
usage?
MO: Yes. The short answer is yes. [Trademark mysterious smile.]
WM: You said that you can't always judge by the definitions as given,
that you can't always tell as to whether something can be transitive
or not. There are certain things that are very similar to {ghoS} that
some of us are very tempted to use in a similar way. Things like {bav}
- "orbit."
MO: Yes. I would do that.
WM: Then there are some that some people are tempted to, and others
really don't like, like {jaH} - "go."
MO: Here's the way {jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology
both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I go in
the river."
I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the river. You can also
say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}...
WM: You'd still use the {Daq}?
MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {Daq} or no
{Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI} means I'm
moving along in someplace. {vI} means I'm moving along to
someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}.
WM: At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.
MO: Right.
WM: {bav}
MO: You don't need a {Daq}. Just use whatever it is that you are orbiting.
WM: {Dech} - "surround."
MO: Same thing.
WM: {ngaS} - "contain."
MO: Same thing.
WM: {vegh}
MO: [laughs] Yes. "To go through." Same thing.
WM: {'el} - "enter."
MO: Same thing. Now, if you did say {pa'Daq vI'el} "I entered into the
room," you could say, well, that's overkill, but that's okay.
It's not like, "Oh, my God, I don't understand you," but you don't
need that.
WM: In the dictionary, you said that {ghoS} could be used either with or
without {Daq} but it would be somewhat marked with the {Daq}. Is
this true for {jaH} as well?
MO: Less marked? Yes, the same, with the {vI}, not with the {jI}.
WM: {leng} - "roam, travel."
MO: {leng} works like {jaH}. These are all okay:
{yuQ vIleng} or {yuQDaq vIleng}
I travel to the planet
{yuQvo' jIleng}
I roam away from the planet
{yuQDaq jIleng}
I roam (around/about) on the planet
This is not okay: {yuQ jIleng}
WM: {paw} - "arrive."
MO: Again, just like {jaH}, it depends. {Duj vIpaw} means "I arrive at the
ship;" {DujDaq jIpaw} means "I arrive on the ship," that is, I arrive
via the ship or something like that. And it would probably be okay
to say {DujDaq vIpaw} for "I arrive at the ship." But {Duj jIpaw}
strikes me as odd.
WM: If you think of any other {ghoS} like verbs... Those were the only
ones I could come up with.
Two other verbs that are interesting in terms of whether you would
use {vI} or {jI} are {Sum} and {Hop}. Like {raS vISum} or {raS vIHop}.
MO: Okay. This opens up a whole new issue. You see, there's this thing
called "deixis." This is the idea that an utterance is made at a
specific time and place, and certain words or grammatical elements
are interpreted correctly only by reference to that time and place.
So the same word may refer to a different realworld thing
depending on who's speaking, where, when, and so on. Like in the
statement "I am here," where is "here?" It has to do with where you
are when you make the statement. And who is "I?" "I" is Marc if I
say it; it's Will if you do.
WM: And when somebody writes that on a blackboard and then walks
away. It was true when it was written, but later...
MO: Yes. It's like the sign in a store window that says "Back in one
hour." If there's no indication of when the sign was put up, how do
you know how long to wait? It's the same in regular conversation.
You don't speak in a vacuum. There are elements in the speech
situation to let us interpret utterances correctly. Usually, anyway.
MO: Using the verbs {Sum} and {Hop} involves this concept.
WM: So I could not say {raSvam vISum} to say, "I am near the table."
MO: No. You'd just say {Sum raS}. The verb {Sum} implies that the speaker
is the one the subject is near at the time of speaking.
{Hop jabwI'}.
The waiter is far <from me> right now.
WM: Well, that resolves the conflict otherwise created if they could take
objects. It keeps them stative, so you can say, {HIvje' Sum yItlhap}.
MO: Yes.
WM: Otherwise, they'd be the only verbs we'd sometimes use as
adjectives and other times use transitively.
MO: Take an object. Yes.
WM: So, could that deictic anchor be shifted by using an indirect object?
Like if I wanted to say, "You are near the table," could I say {SoHvaD
Sum raS}?
MO: No. You'd use {Daq}: {SoHDaq Sum raS}. This throws the orientation
away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener
(marked, stated: "at you, where you are"). But you don't always
need to state this overtly. Context is critical. For example:
{qagh largh SuvwI' ghung. Sum qagh 'e' Sov.}
The hungry warrior smells the gagh.
He/she knows the gagh is nearby.
The only interpretation of this (absent other information) is that the
warrior knows the gagh is near the warrior, not the warrior knows
the gagh is near the speaker of the sentences. If context isn't clear,
you can clarify:
Question: {Sum'a' raS?}
Is the table near (me)? (Am I near the table?)
Answer: {HIja'. Sum raS.}
Yes. The table is near (you).
or
Answer: {ghobe'. jIHDaq Sum raS.}
No. The table is near me.
WM: And could I say {maSumchuq}?
MO: No. You'd just say {bISum} or {SuSum}. If you haven't, in the course of
the conversation, set things up otherwise, it's assumed that the
event being talked about is taking place where the speaker is. In fact,
{jISum} alone probably would make no everyday sense to a Klingon.
"I am near me." But it does have an idiomatic philosophical sense,
something like "I'm in touch with my inner self" (but in a Klingon
sort of way, of course).
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons