tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 07 15:55:26 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: The meaning of -moH

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Brent Kesler wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Brent Kesler wrote:
>>> Some verbs are monovalent (one argument):
>>> 1. tuH yaS
>>> - The officer is ashamed.
>> But is it monovalent because of some syntactic rule, or is it monovalent
>> because of some semantic rule? The evidence suggests that there is
>> nothing *syntactically* wrong with saying {puq tuH yaS}; it just doesn't
>> make any *semantic* sense.
> 
> First of all, what evidence suggests this?

The text tells us we can put objects on verbs, but it never tells us 
when we *can't* do it. There *is* a distinction between verbs of quality 
and verbs of action, but this distinction is never used to describe 
which verbs are allowed objects, and we can only guess at which verbs 
are of quality and which are of action (the English translation 
usually—but not always—makes this clear). But even verbs of quality can 
take objects if they use {-moH}.

 > Second, how can you tell
> the difference? You have a bunch of verbs that never take an object.
> How can you tell which ones are intransitive because of semantics, and
> which ones are intransitive because of syntax? Also, if only syntax
> makes a verb intransitive, how could giving it an object make any
> sense semantically? In other words, what makes semantics and syntax
> different from each other under your analysis?

Syntax says, "The direct receiver of the action of the verb is the 
object; the verb is done to the object." Semantics tells us what that 
action is and the identity of the receiver of the action. Syntax tells 
us, "You're allowed to put nouns marked in this way over here"; 
semantics tells us what those marked nouns mean.

We can't tell from our sources whether it is syntax or semantics which 
governs the placement of objects. Is there a specific class over verbs 
(verbs of quality) which simply do not accept objects? ("<Object> <verb 
of quality>" is illegal because verbs of quality do not accept objects") 
Or is the only thing which prevents us from saying {yaS vItuH} or {yaS 
vIQong} the fact that they don't seem to mean anything? I can say 
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," and it's perfectly valid 
syntactically, but it is semantically nonsensical. Okrand has not given 
us the means to determine this absolutely for Klingon.

> Using our semantic intuitions to determine whether or not a verb can
> take an object doesn't work well.

I agree. But it's all we have. Okrand does his best to translate 
individual verbs so that we see how they're used, but he misses the mark 
a lot of the time.

>> There is no list of verbs wherein, when you
>> don't know their meanings, you can still declare that they don't take an
>> object.
> 
> But if you don't know their meanings, how can you declare that they
> *do* take an object?

I do not. I declare that we can't prove that they don't.

>> When you add {-moH} you're not changing the fundamental syntax
>> of the sentence; you're just adding a meaning that lets an object make
>> semantic sense.
> 
> Then why does {yaS} switch places between {tuH yaS} and {yaS tuHmoH
> puq}?

A good question. This may be evidence that there IS a fundamental, 
syntactic difference between verbs of quality and verbs of action, and 
{-moH} treats them differently.

-- 
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush

Back to archive top level