tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 09 08:02:51 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
- From: QeS 'utlh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:00:57 +1000
- Importance: Normal
ghItlhpu' Doq, ja':
> The definition for {tuQHa'moH} adds weight to this idea: "undress".
> What would be the direct object of that? I undress myself. I undress
> my wife. I don't undress my shirt.
I would argue that taking the glosses too literally is not a good idea. The English glosses are simply there to help you find the Klingon word; then, you need to understand the Klingon word on its own terms, not in terms of the English gloss. Klingon {tuQHa'moH} is not in a one-to-one equivalence with English "undress". The Klingon literally means "to cause to un-wear", and canon shows us that a causative verb can license either the causer and the causee, or the causer and the direct object, as required (or, perhaps, as desired):
{HIQoymoH} "let me hear (it)" (TKD) licenses the causer and the causee as verbal arguments, leaving the direct object unexpressed; whereas
{quHDaj qawmoH} "it reminds (him) of his history" (S20) licenses the causer and the direct object as verbal arguments, leaving the causee unexpressed (in the core verb phrase, anyway; {ghaHvaD} appears as a header for this sentence).
> Likely, he wants {tuQ} to be used both transitively and
> intransitively,
Actually, I tend to think this is a case where the gloss is really insufficient, and the forms of the Klingon words themselves need to be considered. I think what Okrand probably wanted to do with {tuQ} versus {tuQmoH} was to distinguish between "dress (oneself)" and "dress (someone else)". To clarify, I would have glossed the two this way:
tuQ: to wear X, to put X on, to dress in X
tuQmoH: to cause Y to wear X, to put X on Y, to dress Y in X
The presence of the causative suffix supports this idea; the oversimplified gloss "put on", which obscures not one but two potential object slots, hides this detail. Similarly, I think {tuQHa'moH} "undress" means "to undress (someone else), to remove article of clothing X from Y", and that the idiom {qoghwIj vItuQmoHHa'pu'} is simply an instance of Okrand misapplying a verb from TKD with a gloss ("undress", which in English could underlyingly mean either "get undressed" or "cause to get undressed") that could have been either transitive or intransitive. This has happened with {meQ}, as well, which now not only has a stative meaning "be burnt" and an active intransitive meaning "burn, be on fire", but also a causative transitive meaning "burn, set on fire".
> but for my nickel, it makes more sense to stick to
> intransitive so that the -moH glosses make more sense without the
> icky grammar that apparently bothers more people than just me.
I think the issue is that you misunderstand the gloss of {tuQmoH}; see what I said above. I see no conflict between the verbs {tuQ}/{tuQmoH} and the normal usage of {-moH}, except for the issue of the idiom {qoghwIj vItuQmoHHa'pu'}, which isn't to be held up as a paragon of Klingon grammar anyway and can probably be ignored for the purposes of this discussion.
ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten, ja':
>But what *is* the intransitive meaning of {tuQ}?
Recalling that any transitive verb can drop its direct object argument to give a general or unspecified argument, I would say it's the opposite of "be naked": {jItuQ} "I'm wearing things, I'm wearing clothes" as opposed to {jItuQbe'} "I'm not wearing anything, I'm not dressed" or {jItuQQo'} "I won't get dressed".
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Explore the seven wonders of the world
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE