[112081] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does Da necessarily require an object ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Clark)
Wed Mar 6 11:27:00 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 11:26:53 -0500
In-Reply-To: <a69b6ecc-67fc-c88c-f97b-560bbc7a8132@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============3165423750289539743==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-95D52561-B1E2-4873-801C-A611005CE5E9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--Apple-Mail-95D52561-B1E2-4873-801C-A611005CE5E9
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
SuStel
Let me try rephrasing, and stepping away from formal syntactical terminology=
=E2=80=94 since I don=E2=80=99t have adequate command of it.
Also, I=E2=80=99m not questioning what canon says, I=E2=80=99m wonder =E2=80=
=9Chow=E2=80=9D it came to be this way.
When one =E2=80=9Cunderstands=E2=80=9D, there must always be something (howe=
ver broad, vague, or abstract) that is being understood; even if the thing b=
eing understood isn=E2=80=99t explicitly mentioned, it is implicitly communi=
cated through context. This is the case for many things in English (includin=
g: =E2=80=9Cunderstand=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cpay attention=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cb=
ehave=E2=80=9D).
While I understand that {jIyaj} is a valid and canon construction, it seems c=
ounterintuitive to me that Klingons would not say {vIyaj}, since there is al=
ways an =E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D (implied or explicitly stated) that is being un=
derstood. Changing it to {jIyaj} seems like it would have real meaning (expl=
icitly denying the presence of an object =E2=80=94 the thing being understoo=
d), unlike English where the object is left implied by context.
=E2=80=94jevreH
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 6, 2019, at 11:02, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
>> On 3/6/2019 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
>> I would argue that from a logical/semantic standpoint, =E2=80=9Cunderstan=
d=E2=80=9D has no real intransitive meaning.
> What is "intransitive meaning"? Intransitive is a syntactic property that m=
eans the verb has no object. If you look up understand in a dictionary, you w=
ill find both transitive and intransitive senses. It just means it has no di=
rect object.
>=20
> Logically, when one understands, one understands something. But grammar is=
n'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 int=
ransitive, and there's no problem doing this.
>=20
>> The intransitive use is simply a shorthand for an implied transitive mean=
ing. While =E2=80=9CI understand=E2=80=9D might an intransitive use syntacti=
cally, the actual idea being communicated by the statement is =E2=80=9CI und=
erstand this thing/concept/abstraction/whatever=E2=80=9D, which is a transit=
ive concept.
> This is not how the grammars of English or Klingon work. Concepts are not t=
ransitive or intransitive; verbs are.
>=20
>> It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow the syntacti=
c shorthand that English does of =E2=80=9Cintranstivising=E2=80=9D transitiv=
e verbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn=E2=80=99t save any time to say over {v=
Iyaj}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate =E2=80=94 since there is an=
=E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D that is being understood.
> Using verbs intransitively is not just about shorthand or saving time. It l=
ets us say things that are more general than a specific object would allow. W=
e 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.
>=20
> And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's explained to us, it's dem=
onstrated 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 i=
s, are there any verbs that must mention an object? I don't tend to think so=
.
>=20
> Here's a possible scenario for an object-less Da. The captain likes his of=
ficers 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.
> --=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-95D52561-B1E2-4873-801C-A611005CE5E9
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"><div>SuStel</div><div><br></div>Let me try r=
ephrasing, and stepping away from formal syntactical terminology =E2=80=94 s=
ince I don=E2=80=99t have adequate command of it.<div><br></div><div>Also, I=
=E2=80=99m not questioning what canon says, I=E2=80=99m wonder =E2=80=9Chow=E2=
=80=9D it came to be this way.</div><div><br></div><div>When one =E2=80=9Cun=
derstands=E2=80=9D, there must always be something (however broad, vague, or=
abstract) that is being understood; even if the thing being understood isn=E2=
=80=99t explicitly mentioned, it is implicitly communicated through context.=
This is the case for many things in English (including: =E2=80=9Cunderstand=
=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cpay attention=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cbehave=E2=80=9D).</div>=
<div><br></div><div>While I understand that {jIyaj} is a valid and canon con=
struction, it seems counterintuitive to me that Klingons would not say {vIya=
j}, since there is always an =E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D (implied or explicitly sta=
ted) that is being understood. Changing it to {jIyaj} seems like it would ha=
ve real meaning (explicitly denying the presence of an object =E2=80=94 the t=
hing being understood), unlike English where the object is left implied by c=
ontext.<br><div><br></div><div>=E2=80=94jevreH<br><br><div id=3D"AppleMailSi=
gnature">Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Mar 6, 2019, at 11:02, SuStel &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrot=
e:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><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 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46=
A7@gmail.com">I would
argue that from a logical/semantic standpoint, =E2=80=9Cunderstand=E2=80=
=9D 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=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46=
A7@gmail.com"> The
intransitive use is simply a shorthand for an implied transitive
meaning. While =E2=80=9CI understand=E2=80=9D might an intransitive us=
e
syntactically, the actual idea being communicated by the statement
is =E2=80=9CI understand this thing/concept/abstraction/whatever=E2=80=
=9D, 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=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46=
A7@gmail.com">
<div>It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow
the syntactic shorthand that English does of =E2=80=9Cintranstivisin=
g=E2=80=9D
transitive verbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn=E2=80=99t save any ti=
me
to say over {vIyaj}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate =E2=80=
=94
since there is an =E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D that is being understood.</di=
v>
</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=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></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-95D52561-B1E2-4873-801C-A611005CE5E9--
--===============3165423750289539743==
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
--===============3165423750289539743==--
