tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 10 11:22:11 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]) 

Again, I feel my words twisted, likely unintentionally, and so I  
explain...

On Jun 10, 2007, at 10:26 AM, QeS 'utlh wrote:
...
> ghItlhpu' QeS, ja':
>> 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
>
> jang 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.)

You change state to begin wearing something when you put it on.  
That's not tangential to the issue. It's simply another way of  
expressing "to put on (clothes)". It's yet another way of using {tuQ}  
without a direct object.

>> {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 that's where we disagree. I think it's closer to say that  
{tuQmoH} is "cause X to have (clothes) on". The verb may very well be  
so deeply associated with clothing that you don't need a direct  
object, much the way that {SIS} doesn't need a subject. Ask a Klingon  
{SIS nuq?} and you can expect to be treated like an idiot; likely  
violently so. You believe that {tuQ} has a "Y". I don't.

> 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 never implied anything about {tuQchoHmoH}. I was talking about  
{tuQchoH}.

jIvemDI' jItuQchoH. jItuQ'eghmoH.

I'm saying that {tuQchoH} has an equivalent meaning to {tuQ'eghmoH}.  
Sorry that I explained that so poorly that it was completely  
misinterpreted. I didn't intend to say anything about {tuQchoHmoH}.  
When I put some clothes on, I begin wearing those clothes; I cause  
myself to wear them. Once I am in the state of wearing them, I no  
longer begin wearing them, and I no longer cause myself to wear them.  
I simply wear them.

>> 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.

Does the previous paragraph clarify my position?

>> 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.

Everything either of us is saying is speculative at best. Neither of  
us is being less speculative. TKD has no verb for "teach", either. By  
your argument, we should start using {ghoj} as "teach" and stop  
bothering with adding {-moH}.

>> 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.

Meanwhile, I think it is MOST relevant, since more people dress and  
undress themselves than they dress or undress others.

>> 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.

Yes. It is speculatively possible. It is exactly as possible as it is  
unnecessary. That's why I choose to not speculate about what the  
direct object of {tuQ} might be, just as I choose to not speculate  
about what the subject of {SIS} might be.

>> 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.)

Quite honestly, I'd just wonder why Worf was the topic of a sentence  
about Molor causing the baldric to wear clothing.

> 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".

That's not ungrammatical. It's just clipped. {{:)>

> 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.

I'll try to explain. I don't see Klingons spending a lot of time  
talking about individual articles of clothing. It seems perfectly  
natural to have a verb that handles talk about having clothing  
attached to your body in an appropriate fashion so that it keeps you  
warm (they notoriously hate the cold) and shielded (there's no word  
for "hat"; just "helmet"). As a Klingon, you are wearing (clothes),  
or you are not wearing (clothes), just like (it) rains or (it)  
doesn't rain, though you never think about what rains.

If a particular article of clothing does manage to become important  
enough that you want to talk about wearing IT instead of just  
generically wearing clothing, then it seems quite natural to make it  
the topic of the sentence. If it is not worth being the topic, why  
bother mentioning it at all?

To my perspective, a helmet lying on the floor is an object, but when  
you wear it, it essentially becomes a body part. When I wear it, it  
becomes me (not in the fashion sense, but in the sense of boundary  
between that which is me and that which is not me).

It's not like I'd tend to use {-Du'} for plurals of articles of  
clothing. It's that if there are a pair of gloves on a table, I'd  
talk about gloves, but if I'm wearing a pair of gloves, I'd tend to  
talk about my hands and ignore that the gloves are not part of my  
hands. I'd ignore the separation of the gloves and hands. The gloves  
are just part of my hands at that point.

If, for some peculiar reason, the gloves need to be distinguished  
from my hands while I wear them, then they've earned the position of  
topic of the sentence. Otherwise, my gloves ARE my hands.

This perspective is strange, yes, but then, well, so am I. Few who  
speak Klingon fail to wear that badge proudly.

So, anyway, having the verb {tuQ} mean something that doesn't really  
have an exact equivalent meaning in English doesn't bother me. Having  
those seemingly conflicting definitions in the different forms of  
{tuQ} acts, for me, as a series of clues that point in a common  
direction to a meaning that doesn't take a direct object the way the  
word "wear" does. It resolves the conflicts to interpret it that way.

You prefer to live with the conflicts and use {tuQ} like the English  
word "wear", and devalue the problems created by the definitions for  
{tuQmoH} and {tuQHa'moH}, coming up with a nifty method of using  
whatever direct object you happen to want to use in any form of the  
verb. That's your choice, and I'm sure that all these other Klingon  
speakers here will figure out what the f**k you are talking about,  
because they also can use {tuQ} just like "wear" and put whatever  
direct object THEY want to use with it.

Enjoy your choice, as will I.

> QeS 'utlh
> tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language  
> Institute

Doq

Back to archive top level