[2759] in tlhIngan-Hol
po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jan 25 04:45:53 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 16:12:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:17:03 EST <9401242018.A
A29630@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:17:03 EST
>On Jan 24, 2:51pm, mark wrote:
>> Subject: Re: po puv bortaS! (translation)
>> I'm confused by the phrase "bIQtIq vIH"; since vIH is
>> intransitive ('move, be in motion') I can only assume you meant it as an
>> (unattested) related noun, 'motion'.
>No. I was using it adjectivally. {bIQtIq vIH} = "moving river" much like
>{biQtIq bIr} = "cold river".
I saw you were using it adjectivally, and while I did support such things
before, I was talking to Krankor and looked in my TKD and well, I have a
word to say to Krankor: qaQochbe'choHlI' (I am coming to agree with you.
Isn't that a lovely word?). I'm not totally set yet, but TKD does seem to
draw a distinction between stative and active verbs, saying that verbs
which indicate a state can be used as adjectives, not necessarily others.
It's not unique for a language to discriminate between stative and active
verbs, even when verbs and adjectives are blurred: in Hebrew, stative verbs
have a different conjugation than active ones. Granted, it's something of
a cultural bias to determine what counts as a state and what an action, but
I'm starting to be less comfortable about cavalier usage of intransitives
as adjectives. Even Okrand uses "qetbogh loD" and "vIHtaHbogh bIQ"
(granted, the last can't be an adjective and keep its -taH, but its meaning
is pretty much the same as the one here).
>> - marqem
>-- charghwI'
~mark
