[112080] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does Da necessarily require an object ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Mar 6 11:02:07 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 11:02:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46A7@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.
--===============5030411197246891319==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------406F5AB6F84C3136F95FE34F"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------406F5AB6F84C3136F95FE34F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 3/6/2019 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
> I would argue that from a logical/semantic standpoint, “understand”
> has no real intransitive meaning.
What is "intransitive meaning"? /Intransitive/ is a syntactic property
that means the verb has no object. If you look up /understand/ in a
dictionary, you will find both transitive and intransitive senses. It
just means it has no direct object.
Logically, when one understands, one understands /something./ But
grammar isn't about logic; it's about rules of communication. The rules
say that if you don't mention the thing being acted upon, the verb is
considered intransitive, and there's no problem doing this.
> The intransitive use is simply a shorthand for an implied transitive
> meaning. While “I understand” might an intransitive use syntactically,
> the actual idea being communicated by the statement is “I understand
> this thing/concept/abstraction/whatever”, which is a transitive concept.
This is not how the grammars of English or Klingon work. Concepts are
not transitive or intransitive; verbs are.
> It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow the
> syntactic shorthand that English does of “intranstivising” transitive
> verbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn’t save any time to say over
> {vIyaj}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate — since there is an
> “it” that is being understood.
Using verbs intransitively is not just about shorthand or saving time.
It lets us say things that are more general than a specific object would
allow. We don't have to know or mention what we're understanding or
paying attention to or killing or eating or singing in order to do those
things.
And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's explained to us, it's
demonstrated for us, and it's used all the time in canon. It was settled
before anybody thought to ask the question. The only thing we don't know
for sure is, are there any verbs that /must/ mention an object? I don't
tend to think so.
Here's a possible scenario for an object-less *Da.* The captain likes
his officers to show the right attitude on the job...
K1: *QuchwI' vIDataH, yoHwI' DataH torgh, 'ej SeywI' DataH matlh.
*K2: *maj. yonba' HoD.
*K1: *maDataH ghorgh 'e' wImevlaH?
*K2:*peDataH! SuDataH 'e' yImevQo'! pup yaSpu'Daj 'e' poQ HoD.*
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------406F5AB6F84C3136F95FE34F
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 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46A7@gmail.com">I would
argue that from a logical/semantic standpoint, “understand” has no
real intransitive meaning.</blockquote>
<p>What is "intransitive meaning"? <i>Intransitive</i> is a
syntactic property that means the verb has no object. If you look
up <i>understand</i> in a dictionary, you will find both
transitive and intransitive senses. It just means it has no direct
object.</p>
<p>Logically, when one understands, one understands <i>something.</i>
But grammar isn't about logic; it's about rules of communication.
The rules say that if you don't mention the thing being acted
upon, the verb is considered intransitive, and there's no problem
doing this.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46A7@gmail.com"> The
intransitive use is simply a shorthand for an implied transitive
meaning. While “I understand” might an intransitive use
syntactically, the actual idea being communicated by the statement
is “I understand this thing/concept/abstraction/whatever”, which
is a transitive concept.</blockquote>
<p>This is not how the grammars of English or Klingon work. Concepts
are not transitive or intransitive; verbs are.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46A7@gmail.com">
<div>It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow
the syntactic shorthand that English does of “intranstivising”
transitive verbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn’t save any time
to say over {vIyaj}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate —
since there is an “it” that is being understood.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Using verbs intransitively is not just about shorthand or saving
time. It lets us say things that are more general than a specific
object would allow. We don't have to know or mention what we're
understanding or paying attention to or killing or eating or
singing in order to do those things.</p>
<p>And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's explained to us,
it's demonstrated for us, and it's used all the time in canon. It
was settled before anybody thought to ask the question. The only
thing we don't know for sure is, are there any verbs that <i>must</i>
mention an object? I don't tend to think so.</p>
<p>Here's a possible scenario for an object-less <b>Da.</b> The
captain likes his officers to show the right attitude on the
job...<br>
</p>
<p>K1: <b>QuchwI' vIDataH, yoHwI' DataH torgh, 'ej SeywI' DataH
matlh.<br>
</b>K2: <b>maj. yonba' HoD.<br>
</b>K1: <b>maDataH ghorgh 'e' wImevlaH?<br>
</b>K2:<b> peDataH! SuDataH 'e' yImevQo'! pup yaSpu'Daj 'e' poQ
HoD.</b><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>
--------------406F5AB6F84C3136F95FE34F--
--===============5030411197246891319==
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
--===============5030411197246891319==--
