[112078] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does Da necessarily require an object ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Mar 6 10:16:10 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:16:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <048AA38E-46D9-435E-B7BF-B7080F20A316@gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============5204052803332455622==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------E974995D6D984DBBEDA36C89"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------E974995D6D984DBBEDA36C89
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 3/6/2019 10:04 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
> I would think that there would be linguistic pressure against things like {jIqIm} and even {jIyaj}.
>
> In English, for example, we drop the object since context implies it (our own form of clipping). But in Klingon I don’t see the point of changing the prefix just because the object is understood. You are understanding something, you are paying attention to something, you are behaving like something… just because the object is not explicitly given doesn’t mean that the transitive quality of the verb goes away, there is a still “something” that the verb is pointing to, even if it is understood.
This set of prefixes is also used when an object is possible, but
unknown or vague. Thus, *jIyaj* /I understand/ can be used when the
speaker understands things in general, knows what is going on, or
understands what another speaker has just said. It cannot, however,
be used for understanding a language or understanding a person.
Similarly, *maSop* /we eat/ can be used to indicate a general act of
eating, but not if a specific food is mentioned. [TKD]
*jIqIm* can be used in situations where you want to convey that your
attention is given, without specifying exactly what you're paying
attention to. *yIqIm* can be used to order somebody to pay attention to
whatever is about to happen, without having to say the vague /whatever
is about to happen/ every time.
*jIDa* simply means you are behaving as /something,/ without mentioning
what you are behaving as.
> It seems more likely to me that there would be a (unspoken, perhaps) rule about using no-object prefixes with many transitive verbs that can’t have intransitive meanings.
You'd first have to convince me that there are verbs that cannot have
intransitive meanings.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------E974995D6D984DBBEDA36C89
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/6/2019 10:04 AM, Jeffrey Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:048AA38E-46D9-435E-B7BF-B7080F20A316@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I would think that there would be linguistic pressure against things like {jIqIm} and even {jIyaj}.
In English, for example, we drop the object since context implies it (our own form of clipping). But in Klingon I don’t see the point of changing the prefix just because the object is understood. You are understanding something, you are paying attention to something, you are behaving like something… just because the object is not explicitly given doesn’t mean that the transitive quality of the verb goes away, there is a still “something” that the verb is pointing to, even if it is understood.</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>This set of prefixes is also used when an object is possible,
but unknown or vague. Thus, <b>jIyaj</b> <i>I understand</i>
can be used when the speaker understands things in general,
knows what is going on, or understands what another speaker has
just said. It cannot, however, be used for understanding a
language or understanding a person. Similarly, <b>maSop</b> <i>we
eat</i> can be used to indicate a general act of eating, but
not if a specific food is mentioned. [TKD]<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>jIqIm</b> can be used in situations where you want to convey
that your attention is given, without specifying exactly what
you're paying attention to. <b>yIqIm</b> can be used to order
somebody to pay attention to whatever is about to happen, without
having to say the vague <i>whatever is about to happen</i> every
time.</p>
<p><b>jIDa</b> simply means you are behaving as <i>something,</i>
without mentioning what you are behaving as.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:048AA38E-46D9-435E-B7BF-B7080F20A316@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It seems more likely to me that there would be a (unspoken, perhaps) rule about using no-object prefixes with many transitive verbs that can’t have intransitive meanings.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>You'd first have to convince me that there are verbs that cannot
have intransitive meanings.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------E974995D6D984DBBEDA36C89--
--===============5204052803332455622==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============5204052803332455622==--
