[3592] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Adjectives and vIH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Mar 4 21:28:31 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: "d'Armond Speers" <SPEERS@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 1994 21:18:10 -0500 (EST)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
I wrote:
>>With regards to the discussion concerning adjectives & vIH:
>>
>>We've all read the quote from TKD p. 78-79, but so far noone's
>>mentioned an equally-relevant quote, from p. 49:
>>
>>"A verb expressing a state or quality..."
>>
>>It seems to me that vIH does indeed express a state, the state
>>of being in motion, and as such can be used in this way. It's
>>not the inclusing of the English "to be" in the definition,
>>but the thematic nature of the verb itself.
and ~mark respondeth thus:
> Ah... well, my position on this has long been that it depends on the nature
> of the verb, whether or not it is stative or active in meaning, not in the
> translation that Okrand felt like giving it/was forced into giving it by
> the nature of English.
maQochbe'
> However, this opens up the can of worms which you
> have demonstrated: different people will consider different verbs stative.
> "The state of being in motion" may not be any more "stative" to someone
> than "the state of being engaged in running" or "the state of being engaged
> in hitting one's head against a wall".
Are you suggesting that some might interpret qet 'run' as 'engaged in
running' if used adjectivally? How do you get from 'run' to 'engaged
in running' ? I would claim:
1. * yoq qet
when interpreted as "the running humanoid." I'd prefer
2. qetbogh yoq
'the humanoid who runs/is running'
I know you didn't mean to single out 'run' above, but I just wanted
to make that point.
[deletia...]
> The best you can do is to
> follow your own and either accept others' usages or or note that they don't
> align with yours and leave it at that. If the other person rethinks it and
> decides you're right, fine. Otherwise, I don't think anyone has a monopoly
> on judging which verbs are "stative in nature".
I see what you mean, but I can't find any clear examples of verb which
are ambiguous between stative and non-stative. So, I'd claim:
Stative Non-Stative
buD 'be lazy' vuS 'limit'
QeH 'be mad' Hech 'intend'
...
Maybe I can't see them because I don't want to. {{;|
For those non-statives, I'd suggest the strategy I discussed in
another message of today, make it a relative clause. So, to say
"limited food" for example,
3. vuSlu'bogh Soj
Unfortunately, I have no sense of how stylistically correct this is.
Where's our native speaker?
>~mark
Holtej