tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 10 07:28:31 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:26:13 +1000
- Importance: Normal
ghItlhpu' Doq, ja':
> I don't like this kind of argument much. I tend to prefer that people
> have their own interpretations of things.
I have no problem with that, and I'm not intending to waggle the grammarian finger at you. It's fine for people to have their own interpretations, and I've tried to make it clear throughout that these are my opinions only, however sound I may believe their reasoning to be, not to be taken as canon. But it's still possible for interpretations - yours, mine, whoever's - to be logically flawed. Since you've elaborated your argument further, I see that I misunderstood you somewhat with regard to how you understand {tuQ(moH)}, although I still disagree with your conclusions. HIvqa' veqlargh.
jIghItlhpu', jIja':
>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
mujang Doq, ja':
> I can't agree with your second definition of {tuQ} here. {tuQ} is
> not "to put X on". {tuQ} is to *HAVE* X on.
Agreed. (Although seeing as "to put X on" would be {tuQchoH}, it's kind of tangential to the issue at hand. Anyway, I intended the gloss "to wear X" to include both the static and dynamic meanings of the verb.)
> {tuQmoH} is to cause to have X on, which is a lot closer to "to
> put X on" than {tuQ}.
Strictly, {tuQmoH} is "to cause (X) to have (Y) on", and the presence of {-moH} doesn't necessarily imply the idea of change inherent in {-choH}. If we use {Sop} "to eat" instead, this becomes readily apparent:
{puq SopmoH be'} "the woman makes the child eat, the woman feeds the child"
{puq SopchoHmoH be'} "the woman makes the child start to eat, the woman starts feeding the child"
> 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,
The action of falling asleep isn't the same as that of being asleep, either, and yet the pair {QongchoH}/{Qong} does perfectly well for that distinction. I fail to see the difference.
> 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.
...except for {tuQHa'moH} "to undress" from TKD. That's sufficient evidence for permitting {tuQchoH} as meaning "to put X on, to come to wear X", I believe (and perhaps even simply {tuQ}, since {-Ha'} doesn't necessarily imply a dynamic meaning either: note {vIlamHa'choHmoH} "I have them cleaned", from TKD p.170). Entirely aside from that, TKD has no verb for "to dress, to put on", and I think that arguing that {tuQ} - at least in compound with the verb suffix {-choH}, and perhaps without - cannot serve this purpose is speculative at best.
> I don't buy this thing about {tuQmoH} and {tuQHa'moH} referring
> to dressing or undressing someone else.
I simply mean that if one is dressing oneself, {-'egh} would also be necessary. {tuQmoH} can only refer to dressing someone else; if the verb referred to dressing oneself, it would be {tuQ'eghmoH}. Further, in any argument about transitivity, it's pointless talking about any verb plus {-'eghmoH}, as by definition reflexive and reciprocal verbs can only take intransitive verbal prefixes, which is why I explicitly tried to remove {tuQ'eghmoH} from the discussion. It can't tell us anything relevant.
> 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.
But by the same token, canon indicates that it is entirely *possible* to make the clothing the direct object. {Ha'quj tuQmoH} is, in all likelihood, grammatical; the example of {quHDaj qawmoH} from S20 is evidence for that.
> It can be the topic or focus scope of the sentence.
You'll find no argument from me on that point. {Ha'quj'e' wo'rIv tuQmoH molor} "as for the baldric, Molor makes Worf wear (it)" is entirely grammatical, well-formed Klingon. (As, for that matter, is {wo'rIv'e' Ha'quj tuQmoH molor}, IMHO. Focus needs not be limited to the object of the caused action; any noun phrase can become the {-'e'}-header.)
But for my money, {Ha'quj'e' tuQmoH molor} is overkill. It's not wrong, but I think there's altogether too much emphasis on {Ha'quj} that doesn't need to be there. Additionally, I think that the verb would still agree with the {-'e'}-marked object (which is grammatical, as an {-'e'}-marked noun may serve as direct object or as subject as well as in the function of a header): I would probably be more likely to say {Ha'quj'e' vItuQ} "I wear the baldric" rather than {Ha'quj'e' jItuQ}, because the idea of {-'e'} is to emphasise the noun it marks, whereas the function of using intransitive verb prefixes on a verb whose semantics are basically transitive is to DE-emphasise the object. To me, ?{Ha'quj'e' jItuQ} is strange, if not out-and-out ungrammatical, for that reason.
> 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.
{-qoq} Dalo'DI' yIyep'eghmoH. DajatlhDI' teH chovnatlh 'ej jIvItqu' 'e' DaHarbe'law'. You can find the phrase {qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'} in "Okrand's Notes", HolQeD 2:4, pages 17 and 18. It's not the only idiom we have with a grammatical inaccuracy, either; note ST6's {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} "it is better to die standing that to live kneeling".
Anyway, your reaction is exactly why I said that example *should not* be cited as an example of how a well-formed sentence is constructed.
> Anyway, I don't think I misunderstand {tuQmoH}. We'll just have
> to disagree about that.
luq.
jIja'taH:
> 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".
mujangqa' Doq, ja':
> 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.
wa' DoS wIqIp. I find it makes for more expressive Klingon with the option of selecting whether you want to talk about an object or not; it's parallel to the {-lu'} formation for omitting the subject of a sentence. Personally, I find the distinction between transitive and intransitive to be of only limited use in discussing Klingon because of this. (Nonetheless, there are obviously the adjectival verbs to consider - at this point, it seems to be essentially impossible for them to take an object of any sort - as well as those verbs that, in practice, never appear with an object, such as {Qong} "to sleep".)
> Meanwhile, I continue to find the word {tuQ} and its variations
> easier to work with if I use it intransitively, unless it has {-moH}.
I still don't even understand what you mean by this. How does one use {tuQ} intransitively? Unless you mean that you use the verb {tuQ} with a topic/focus noun rather than a direct object? As I point out above, unless the {-'e'}-marking is on the direct object noun (and thus the verb retains agreement for the direct object, and is therefore still transitive - in which case {-'e'} could be safely dropped anyway), I think it's probably not correct to do that, since {-'e'}-marking and direct object prefix-dropping serve two conflicting purposes. I find ?{Ha'quj'e' jItuQ} to be questionable. YMMV.
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
_________________________________________________________________
Discover the new Windows Vista
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE