tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 09 13:00:45 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions

Doq ([email protected]) 

I don't like this kind of argument much. I tend to prefer that people  
have their own interpretations of things. There's a point here,  
though that really seems to miss what I honestly think is part of the  
meaning of {tuQ}.

On Jun 9, 2007, at 11:00 AM, QeS 'utlh wrote:

>
> 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...
>> 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

I can't agree with your second definition of {tuQ} here. {tuQ} is not  
"to put X on". {tuQ} is to *HAVE* X on. {tuQmoH} is to cause to have  
X on, which is a lot closer to "to put X on" than {tuQ}. I could see  
{tuQchoH} as "to put X on", but the action of putting on clothes is  
not the same thing as the state of wearing clothes, and {tuQ}, by all  
evidence, refers to the wearing and not the putting on. We don't have  
any evidence here that Klingon combines these two meanings into one  
verb.

> 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".

I don't buy this thing about {tuQmoH} and {tuQHa'moH} referring to  
dressing or undressing someone else. You can just as easily  
{tuQ'eghmoH} as {tuQmoH}. It just means "cause to wear". When you  
dress yourself, you cause yourself to wear clothes. Again, there's no  
need to make the article of clothing the direct object. It can be the  
topic or focus scope of the sentence.

>> 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.

Where is THAT "canon"qoq from? It's not even properly formed, unless  
we consider {tuQmoH} to be a new verbal form, separate from {tuQ}  
altogether.

Anyway, I don't think I misunderstand {tuQmoH}. We'll just have to  
disagree about that.

> 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".

As I said, likely Okrand himself would use it transitively or  
intransitively and try to sound mysterious about it, referring to how  
Klingon grammarians don't use the words transitive or intransitive.  
Note that the words "transitive" and "intransitive" are not used in  
TKD, for instance, or anywhere else in Okrand's writings. It's no  
accident that he has omitted the terms.

Meanwhile, I continue to find the word {tuQ} and its variations  
easier to work with if I use it intransitively, unless it has {-moH}.  
It's not a rule I intend to inflict on anyone. I'm not going to wag  
my finger at anyone when they use it transitively. It's just how I  
use the word.

> 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
>

Doq

Back to archive top level