tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 11 19:33:15 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

QeS 'utlh ([email protected])



ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten, ja':
> I think I'm coming 'round to Doq's viewpoint.  It would have been better for > Okrand to gloss {tuQ} as "be dressed".
 
I don't think so. The most damning piece of evidence against this viewpoint is S20, one of only a couple of places where we have the verb attested in actual usage. There, we have two examples of {tuQ}, in two consecutive phrases - and only one could possibly be considered as being monovalent:
 
{Ha'quj'e' tuQbogh wo'rIv} "the sash that Worf wears"
Recall that Okrand has said in an interview with HolQeD (4:2, pp. 5-6) that relative clauses can probably only access either the subject or direct object of a sentence, so {Ha'quj'e'} cannot be serving as a topic header here.
 
{tuQtaHvIS Hem} "he wears it with pride"
This *may* be an instance of monovalent {tuQ}, but the semantics and the context (it appears immediately after the previous example) seem to indicate otherwise.
 
Also, {mIv je DaS tuQ ra'wI'} "the commander is in full dress uniform" (literally "the commander is wearing helmet and boot"), from KGT, demonstrates a second unambiguous instance of divalent {tuQ}.
 
jIja'pu':
> 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.)
mujang Doq, ja': > You change state to begin wearing something when you put it on.  > That's not tangential to the issue.
 
It's tangential to the issue of how {tuQmoH} behaves, which was what I thought the argument was about. {tuQchoH} has nothing useful to say about {tuQmoH}, in my opinion.
 
> It's simply another way of expressing "to put on (clothes)". It's
> yet another way of using {tuQ} without a direct object.
 
Or with. {Ha'qujwIj vItuQchoH} "I put on my baldric" as opposed to {Ha'qujwIj vItuQ} "I'm wearing my baldric". > 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,
 
I find no problem with {jItuQchoH} "I'm getting dressed". I never said that I rejected this form. In Klingon, a direct object is *never* necessary (so, for instance, {jISop} "I'm eating"); the direct object may be dropped from any verb.
 
> 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.
 
Not only do I believe that {tuQ} *can* have a Y (as in, it doesn't have to, but it can), but it's not belief; canon demonstrates it. The only valency-unambiguous examples of {tuQ} in actual usage are on S20 and in KGT, in each instance being clearly divalent. > I'm saying that {tuQchoH} has an equivalent meaning to {tuQ'eghmoH}.  > Sorry that I explained that so poorly that it was completely  > misinterpreted.
 
qay'be'. 'ach maQochqu'taH.
 
> 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.
 
You *begin* causing yourself to wear them. {-moH} is separate from {-choH}. When you put clothes on, you're not strictly causing yourself to wear them, you're causing yourself to put them on. It's a fine distinction, and I don't know how to explain it any other way in English, so I'm not going to argue any further on this point.
 
jIja'taH:
> ...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. jangtaH Doq:
> Everything either of us is saying is speculative at best. Neither of  > us is being less speculative.
 
Above, I've provided canon support for why I think {tuQ} (and by extension, {tuQmoH} and {tuQHa'moH}) carries the meaning that I think it does.
 
> TKD has no verb for "teach", either.
 
{ghojmoH} "teach, instruct" is in the K-E side of TKD, if I recall correctly.
 
> By your argument, we should start
> using {ghoj} as "teach" and stop bothering with adding {-moH}.
 
You're putting words into my mouth here. Even you argue that the subject of {tuQ} without {-moH} is still the person putting clothes on, not the clothes being put on, so the situation is entirely different. The subject of {ghoj} is the learner. The subject of {ghojmoH} is the teacher. Similarly, the subject of {tuQ} is the person wearing the clothes, and the subject of {tuQmoH} is the person putting the clothes onto someone else or themselves. I haven't tried to argue otherwise. The problem, I think, is the ambiguity in the English verb "to put on" - i.e. it can mean either "to put X on" (i.e. on oneself), or "to put X on Y" (where Y could be oneself or someone else). I may not have been clear about which of these meanings I've been selecting. jIja'taH:
> 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. jangtaH Doq:
> Meanwhile, I think it is MOST relevant, since more people dress and  > undress themselves than they dress or undress others.
 
I can't do much more than repeat what I said: {tuQ'eghmoH} is actually incapable of telling us anything about the valency of {tuQ}. *All* {-'egh} verbs can only take no-object verb prefixes; *{vItuQ'eghmoH} is out-and-out ungrammatical. Even {nob}, which is unarguably capable of being divalent, becomes monovalent when reflexive; *{vInob'eghmoH} is just as incorrect as {*vItuQ'eghmoH}. If you're arguing that since {tuQ'eghmoH} is roughly equivalent to {tuQ(choH)}, and therefore they must have the same argument structure, then you need to reread TKD on {-'egh} and {-chuq}. If you're not, then {tuQ'eghmoH} can be safely ignored when discussing the valency of {tuQ}. Whether {tuQ} is monovalent or divalent, {tuQ'eghmoH} can only be monovalent, and thus can't be used for making judgments on the valency of {tuQ}.
 
jIja'taH:
> 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. 
jangtaH Doq:>Yes. It is speculatively possible.
 
Anything that we produce that doesn't exactly quote a canon example is speculative by its very nature. What's to say that the verb {ghup} "to swallow" isn't the only irregular verb in the language? We treat it as regular because we have no counterexamples. This is the problem with a language of which there are no native speakers; we have to extrapolate given the rules and the canon examples that we've been given. We have to treat rules as generalities until we find counterexamples, or there's no point bothering with Klingon. Languages are systems, and Klingon is no exception.
 
> It is exactly as possible as it is unnecessary.
 
There's a lot of "unnecessary" in any language. Why does Klingon bother with noun class? Why do we say {qagh vISop} and not {jISop 'ej qagh 'oH SojwIj'e'}? To which I say, Why not? If a phenomenon falls within the rules of Klingon, I don't see why it shouldn't have use made of it.
 
jIja'taH:
> 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.) jangtaH Doq:
> Quite honestly, I'd just wonder why Worf was the topic of a sentence  > about Molor causing the baldric to wear clothing.
 
A Klingon verb can license only two arguments at a time: a subject and an object. When a nominally divalent verb is causativised, despite the fact that three arguments should be involved (the causer, the causee and the object of the caused action), the verb can still license only two of those three. The canon I cited in my previous email shows that the object-agreement slot of a causative verb may license either the causee or the object of the caused action. Since either is possible, {Ha'quj tuQmoH molor} could mean either "Molor causes the baldric to wear (X)" or "Molor causes (Y) to wear the baldric", and since the first meaning is pretty nonsensical, that should be enough to show the listener which of the two meanings is intended. In the example I wrote, it'd be "As for Worf, Molor made (him) wear the baldric" or, perhaps, "It was Worf that Molor made wear the baldric". > I'll try to explain. I don't see Klingons spending a lot of time  > talking about individual articles of clothing.
 
(...poD)
 
I won't try to argue with this, since its basis is cultural rather than linguistic. All I'll say is that KGT gives several terms for individual items of clothing, and that Klingons probably would have a lot to say about other individual articles which can be put on - like the {Ha'quj} "baldric", which displays the sigil of one's House among other things; the {lIghon DuQwI' pogh} "Ligonian spike glove", a weapon which is worn; and things like the {mIv} "helmet" and {mIv'a'} "crown". Perhaps even jewellery and such, like the {jInaq} "jinak-amulet" and {Qeb} "ring", might fall under the {tuQ}able category.
 
> So, anyway, having the verb {tuQ} mean something that doesn't really  > have an exact equivalent meaning in English doesn't bother me.
 
I work fine with the verbs {ghar}, {SuD} and {Doq}, none of which has a direct equivalent in English. I just don't think {tuQ} is as strange as you make out, and canon examples indicate that it's a pretty bog-standard verb meaning "to wear (X), to have (X) on".
 
> 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.
 
The problem is that other canon clarifies the definition in a different direction.
 
> It resolves the conflicts to interpret it that way. It's one way of resolving the conflicts. I don't see how my way of looking at it resolves the conflict in any less detail:
 
{tuQ} = to wear (X) (TKD: "wear (clothes)")
{tuQmoH} = to cause (Y) to wear (X) (TKD: "put on (clothes)")
{tuQ'eghmoH} = to cause oneself to wear something
{tuQHa'} = to remove (X) (from oneself)
{tuQHa'moH} = to cause (Y) to remove (X) (from (Y)'s self) (TKD: "undress")
{tuQHa''eghmoH} = to cause oneself to remove something (from oneself)
 
It's a hypothesis that fits all the facts. It fits with all the glosses in TKD, follows the grammar rules in TKD, and is consistent with all the canon examples we have except for {qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'}, which is clearly divergent and probably should be treated as a lookup error on Okrand's part.
 
> 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.
 
Yes, I've devalued the problems. But I believe I've devalued the problems by removing them; for me, there is no problem, since the paradigm I give above fits all the observed data except for the divergent idiom, *including* the glosses in TKD. Anyway, I happen to like the fluidity of choice of object with causative verbs. Context is almost always sufficient to disambiguate - like with {Ha'quj tuQmoH molor}, for which there's only one sensible explanation.
 
> 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,
 
I don't appreciate the implied insult.
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




Back to archive top level