tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 28 23:42:47 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon
<br><div class="gmail_quote">SuStel:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">The semantic roles of subjects and objects in Klingon seem to change all the time. I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you {mev}. Sometimes we're given explicit instructions on how to use a verb, but most of the time we rely on the semantics of the English translation. Suppose Klingon semantics aren't so strict? Suppose you can use any semantic role you like as subject or object, so long as context makes it clear what you mean? {jIDIng} "I spin," {gho vIDIng} "I spin the circle," {gho vIDIngmoH} "I spin the circle." (The difference between the latter two is an explicit indication ({-moH}) that the subject is the agent, as opposed to, say, an instrument or a force.<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br></div>Where has {mev} been used in the sense of {mevmoH}? <div><br></div><div>We did ask MO about {DIng} (whether it's transitive and how it differs from {jIr}/{jIrmoH}) at the qepHom'a' but didnt' get an answer. (We did get that {ghur} and {nup} are intransitive though.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>I can't think of any examples where the semantic roles of subjects and objects have changed. We recently learned that {vergh} is transitive (someone docks something), when some people have assumed it was intransitive (the ship docks). But I don't think the canon contradicts previous canon, just people's assumptions.<br clear="all">
<div><br></div>-- <br>De'vID<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol