tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 18 09:43:43 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: use of DIng

Terrence Donnelly (terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net) [KLI Member]



Why am I not surprised?

-- ter'eS

--- On Fri, 9/18/09, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:

> From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
> Subject: RE: use of DIng
> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:03 AM
> Frankly, I think that's a terrible
> way to reason out linguistic puzzles.
> Even if one assumed a homogeneous culture, one's language
> need not
> necessarily mimic it by subjective example.
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: use of DIng
> > From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
> > Date: Fri, September 18, 2009 10:44 am
> > To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> > 
> > 
> > I'm tending to think you are right on philosophical
> grounds: since Klingons prefer action, they probably prefer
> to be the actor rather than the one acted upon, so the
> simple stem of most verbs would describe the subject as
> performing (or experiencing) the verb (the intransitive
> usage), with {-moH} available for when you want to refer to
> the agency that causes them to undergo the verb
> (transitive). By that reasoning, for verbs we have no canon
> for that can go either way in English, my default assumption
> would be that they are intransitive in Klingon. If my memory
> wasn't so bad, I'd cite some examples!
> > 
> > -- ter'eS
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 9/18/09, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
> > > Subject: RE: use of DIng
> > > To: "'tlhingan-hol@kli.org'"
> <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> > > Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 8:30 AM
> > > ter'eS:
> > > >> Does anyone recall if we know whether
> {DIng} is
> > > transitive or
> > > >> intransitive? Is the subject the thing
> turned or
> > > the person who 
> > > >> turns the thing?
> > > 
> > > lay'tel SIvten:
> > > >I couldn't find any canon for it. Since
> merely adding
> > > {-moH} would 
> > > >make it the transitive version, I hope it's
> the
> > > intransitive meaning.
> > > >If it's the transitive meaning already, then
> it's a lot
> > > harder to 
> > > >get the intransitive meaning.
> > > 
> > > There's no canon for {Ding} "spin" - or {tlhe'}
> "turn"
> > > either.  Like lay'SIv, I imagine they both work
> like
> > > {jIr} "rotate, twirl" vs. {jIrmoH} "twirl X,
> cause X to
> > > rotate".  (The context in KGT p.59-60 was
> specifically
> > > about bat'leth movements, but I imagine {jIrmoH}
> can be used
> > > for other things as well.)
> > > 
> > >  
> > > -- 
> > > Voragh             
> > >             
> > > Canon Master of the Klingons
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 






Back to archive top level