[102552] in tlhIngan-Hol
[Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Mon Nov 23 14:55:03 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:54:44 -0500
To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============6734465869264467554==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CD5A9491-D3F7-4B54-BFE9-7DFAB03F6423"
--Apple-Mail=_CD5A9491-D3F7-4B54-BFE9-7DFAB03F6423
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Hi,
I apologize for frustrating so many of you recently over the topic of =
adding {-moH} to verbs that can take direct objects (heaven forbid we =
use the word =E2=80=9Ctransitive=E2=80=9D).
Trust that I=E2=80=99m not trying to be a jerk. I=E2=80=99m honestly =
frustrated with what seems to be uncharacteristic inconsistency in this =
area of Klingon grammar.
I=E2=80=99m trying to find the root of the problem. It occurs to me that =
it seems to center itself around the suffix {-vaD}. It=E2=80=99s one of =
the Type 5 noun suffixes. All of the OTHER Type 5 noun suffixes tell you =
what the noun is doing grammatically in the sentence. They explain the =
relationship between that noun and the action of the verb. I=E2=80=99ve =
tended to think that in this functionality, {-vaD} is just like the =
other Type 5 suffixes.
But now arguments are being made that {-vaD} is optionally applied to a =
type of object of the verb. In other words, there is no direct or =
indirect object. There are just =E2=80=9Cobjects=E2=80=9D. An unmarked =
noun preceding the verb is that verb=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Cobject=E2=80=9D. =
It might be a direct object. It might be an indirect object. The Klingon =
language appears to not distinguish between the two.
So, that=E2=80=99s my problem. It always SEEMED to distinguish between =
the two, until recently.
So, then, I begin to wonder what {-vaD} is for. If it is optional, why =
bother with it at all?
I suppose the suggestion is that it=E2=80=99s like the plural suffix. If =
there are other clues that a noun is plural, you don=E2=80=99t need to =
put the plural suffix on it. So, in a similar way, if there are other =
clues that an object is an indirect object, it doesn=E2=80=99t need =
{-vaD}, but if there are TWO objects to a verb, and one of them is =
direct and the other is indirect, then you mark the indirect object with =
{-vaD}.
I could see that, except that, of course, Okrand doesn=E2=80=99t say =
that anywhere in TKD, or in the Addendum, or in any of the other places =
he has discussed grammar. Why would he explicitly explain that =
characteristic for plurals, and not for indirect objects?
I=E2=80=99m sure that someone will have an objection to me using the =
term =E2=80=9Cindirect object=E2=80=9D instead of =E2=80=9Cbeneficiary=E2=80=
=9D. Fine. Have problems. We both know what I=E2=80=99m talking about. =
Talk about what I=E2=80=99m talking about instead of distracting the =
conversation by arguing about the right term to use. That kind of =
distraction does not impress me as an effective debate tactic. It avoids =
the meat of the matter.
It=E2=80=99s even more worrisome because with plural suffixes, it=E2=80=99=
s never wrong to explicitly use the plural suffix when it would normally =
be omitted, but in arguments here, it seems to be the case that it IS =
wrong to use {-vaD} in {pa=E2=80=99vaD tujmoH qul}, because somehow the =
room can=E2=80=99t be interpreted as the beneficiary of being heated, =
though Worf CAN be interpreted as the beneficiary of being taught.
And in {wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} it=E2=80=99s =
mysteriously right to add {-vaD} to {wo=E2=80=99rIv}, though it=E2=80=99s =
mysteriously wrong to add it if I just say {wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD =
vIghojmoH}.
See my problem? The inconsistency of it stretches far beyond a simple =
lack of explicit, detailed explanation of the grammar. If this was =
supposed to be this weird, Okrand should have explicitly explained this =
to us a long time ago.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
--Apple-Mail=_CD5A9491-D3F7-4B54-BFE9-7DFAB03F6423
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D"">Hi,<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I =
apologize for frustrating so many of you recently over the topic of =
adding {-moH} to verbs that can take direct objects (heaven forbid we =
use the word =E2=80=9Ctransitive=E2=80=9D).</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Trust that I=E2=80=99m not trying to be =
a jerk. I=E2=80=99m honestly frustrated with what seems to be =
uncharacteristic inconsistency in this area of Klingon =
grammar.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I=E2=80=
=99m trying to find the root of the problem. It occurs to me that it =
seems to center itself around the suffix {-vaD}. It=E2=80=99s one of the =
Type 5 noun suffixes. All of the OTHER Type 5 noun suffixes tell you =
what the noun is doing grammatically in the sentence. They explain the =
relationship between that noun and the action of the verb. I=E2=80=99ve =
tended to think that in this functionality, {-vaD} is just like the =
other Type 5 suffixes.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">But now arguments are being made that {-vaD} is optionally =
applied to a type of object of the verb. In other words, there is no =
direct or indirect object. There are just =E2=80=9Cobjects=E2=80=9D. An =
unmarked noun preceding the verb is that verb=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Cobject=E2=
=80=9D. It might be a direct object. It might be an indirect object. The =
Klingon language appears to not distinguish between the two.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">So, that=E2=80=99s my =
problem. It always SEEMED to distinguish between the two, until =
recently.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">So, =
then, I begin to wonder what {-vaD} is for. If it is optional, why =
bother with it at all?</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">I suppose the suggestion is that it=E2=80=99s like the plural =
suffix. If there are other clues that a noun is plural, you don=E2=80=99t =
need to put the plural suffix on it. So, in a similar way, if there are =
other clues that an object is an indirect object, it doesn=E2=80=99t =
need {-vaD}, but if there are TWO objects to a verb, and one of them is =
direct and the other is indirect, then you mark the indirect object with =
{-vaD}.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I =
could see that, except that, of course, Okrand doesn=E2=80=99t say that =
anywhere in TKD, or in the Addendum, or in any of the other places he =
has discussed grammar. Why would he explicitly explain that =
characteristic for plurals, and not for indirect objects?</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I=E2=80=99m sure that =
someone will have an objection to me using the term =E2=80=9Cindirect =
object=E2=80=9D instead of =E2=80=9Cbeneficiary=E2=80=9D. Fine. Have =
problems. We both know what I=E2=80=99m talking about. Talk about what =
I=E2=80=99m talking about instead of distracting the conversation by =
arguing about the right term to use. That kind of distraction does not =
impress me as an effective debate tactic. It avoids the meat of the =
matter.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It=E2=80=
=99s even more worrisome because with plural suffixes, it=E2=80=99s =
never wrong to explicitly use the plural suffix when it would normally =
be omitted, but in arguments here, it seems to be the case that it IS =
wrong to use {-vaD} in {pa=E2=80=99vaD tujmoH qul}, because somehow the =
room can=E2=80=99t be interpreted as the beneficiary of being heated, =
though Worf CAN be interpreted as the beneficiary of being =
taught.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">And in =
{wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} it=E2=80=99s mysteriously =
right to add {-vaD} to {wo=E2=80=99rIv}, though it=E2=80=99s =
mysteriously wrong to add it if I just say {wo=E2=80=99rIvvaD =
vIghojmoH}.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">See =
my problem? The inconsistency of it stretches far beyond a simple lack =
of explicit, detailed explanation of the grammar. If this was supposed =
to be this weird, Okrand should have explicitly explained this to us a =
long time ago.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class=3D"">pItlh</div><div =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></span><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=3D""></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_CD5A9491-D3F7-4B54-BFE9-7DFAB03F6423--
--===============6734465869264467554==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============6734465869264467554==--
