[112079] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does Da necessarily require an object ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Clark)
Wed Mar 6 10:32:02 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:31:56 -0500
In-Reply-To: <137cc3e7-6798-14cb-196f-ae7b2f19153b@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============5723586460555898345==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-CC0831D3-3E15-4D89-B4E6-14D1A0898FB9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--Apple-Mail-CC0831D3-3E15-4D89-B4E6-14D1A0898FB9
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would argue that from a logical/semantic standpoint, =E2=80=9Cunderstand=E2=
=80=9D has no real intransitive meaning. The intransitive use is simply a sh=
orthand for an implied transitive meaning. While =E2=80=9CI understand=E2=80=
=9D might an intransitive use syntactically, the actual idea being communica=
ted by the statement is =E2=80=9CI understand this thing/concept/abstraction=
/whatever=E2=80=9D, which is a transitive concept.
I think there are many verbs that operate solely transitively on a semantic l=
evel, even if we make them intransitive on a syntactic level =E2=80=94 the s=
yntactic intransitiveness still implies a semantic object, even if that obje=
ct isn=E2=80=99t stated.
It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow the syntactic s=
horthand that English does of =E2=80=9Cintranstivising=E2=80=9D transitive v=
erbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn=E2=80=99t save any time to say over {vIya=
j}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate =E2=80=94 since there is an =E2=
=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D that is being understood.
=E2=80=94jevreH
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 6, 2019, at 10:16, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
>> 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}.
>>=20
>> In English, for example, we drop the object since context implies it (our=
own form of clipping). But in Klingon I don=E2=80=99t see the point of chan=
ging the prefix just because the object is understood. You are understanding=
something, you are paying attention to something, you are behaving like som=
ething=E2=80=A6 just because the object is not explicitly given doesn=E2=80=99=
t mean that the transitive quality of the verb goes away, there is a still =E2=
=80=9Csomething=E2=80=9D that the verb is pointing to, even if it is underst=
ood.
> This set of prefixes is also used when an object is possible, but unknown o=
r vague. Thus, jIyaj I understand can be used when the speaker understands t=
hings in general, knows what is going on, or understands what another speake=
r 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 g=
eneral 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 attenti=
on is given, without specifying exactly what you're paying attention to. yIq=
Im can be used to order somebody to pay attention to whatever is about to ha=
ppen, without having to say the vague whatever is about to happen every time=
.
>=20
> jIDa simply means you are behaving as something, without mentioning what y=
ou are behaving as.
>=20
>> 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=E2=80=99=
t have intransitive meanings.
> You'd first have to convince me that there are verbs that cannot have intr=
ansitive meanings.
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--Apple-Mail-CC0831D3-3E15-4D89-B4E6-14D1A0898FB9
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto">I would argue that from a logical/semantic s=
tandpoint, =E2=80=9Cunderstand=E2=80=9D has no real intransitive meaning. Th=
e intransitive use is simply a shorthand for an implied transitive meaning. W=
hile =E2=80=9CI understand=E2=80=9D might an intransitive use syntactically,=
the actual idea being communicated by the statement is =E2=80=9CI understan=
d this thing/concept/abstraction/whatever=E2=80=9D, which is a transitive co=
ncept.<div><br></div><div>I think there are many verbs that operate solely t=
ransitively on a semantic level, even if we make them intransitive on a synt=
actic level =E2=80=94 the syntactic intransitiveness still implies a semanti=
c object, even if that object isn=E2=80=99t stated.</div><div><br></div><div=
>It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow the syntactic s=
horthand that English does of =E2=80=9Cintranstivising=E2=80=9D transitive v=
erbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn=E2=80=99t save any time to say over {vIya=
j}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate =E2=80=94 since there is an =E2=
=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D that is being understood.</div><div><br></div><div>=E2=80=94=
jevreH<br><br><div id=3D"AppleMailSignature">Sent from my iPhone</div><div><=
br>On Mar 6, 2019, at 10:16, SuStel <<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.na=
me">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cit=
e"><div>
=20
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF-8"=
>
=20
=20
<div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 3/6/2019 10:04 AM, Jeffrey Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:048AA38E-46D9-435E-B7BF-B7080F20A3=
16@gmail.com">
<pre class=3D"moz-quote-pre" wrap=3D"">I would think that there would b=
e linguistic pressure against things like {jIqIm} and even {jIyaj}.
In English, for example, we drop the object since context implies it (our ow=
n form of clipping). But in Klingon I don=E2=80=99t see the point of changin=
g the prefix just because the object is understood. You are understanding so=
mething, you are paying attention to something, you are behaving like someth=
ing=E2=80=A6 just because the object is not explicitly given doesn=E2=80=99t=
mean that the transitive quality of the verb goes away, there is a still =E2=
=80=9Csomething=E2=80=9D that the verb is pointing to, even if it is underst=
ood.</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=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:048AA38E-46D9-435E-B7BF-B7080F20A3=
16@gmail.com">
<pre class=3D"moz-quote-pre" wrap=3D"">It seems more likely to me that=
there would be a (unspoken, perhaps) rule about using no-object prefixes wi=
th many transitive verbs that can=E2=80=99t 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=3D"moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20
SuStel
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"http://trimboli.name">http://trim=
boli.name</a></pre>
=20
</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><span>____________________=
___________________________</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list</span>=
<br><span><a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.k=
li.org</a></span><br><span><a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhi=
ngan-hol-kli.org">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a>=
</span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-CC0831D3-3E15-4D89-B4E6-14D1A0898FB9--
--===============5723586460555898345==
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
--===============5723586460555898345==--
