[2775] in tlhIngan-Hol
po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jan 25 15:30:47 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: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 15:17:37 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Tue, 25 Jan 94 11:41:53 EST <9401251642.A
A27558@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 11:41:53 EST
>On Jan 24, 4:17pm, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> Subject: po puv bortaS! (translation)
>>
>> >From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>> >Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:17:03 EST
>...
[ discussion of which verbs are active, which stative, and which somewhere
in between based on use of "be X" in translation ]
I'm not sure it's so clear-cut. Granted, I didn't check the dictionary and
so missed the "be in motion" definition of vIH in the first place, but it
seems awfully Anglo-centric to switch off the use of a word in the woefully
inadequate glosses. I think we really may need some more direction on this
one: how can yyou tell a verb which can be used as an adjective from one
which can't?
>I think these verbs deserve a little more discussion before we pass
>judgement based upon generalizations about Hebrew examples. Klingon was not,
>despite suggestions by Dorn, based upon Hebrew. I'm willing to accept that
>the above constructions are illegal as a group, but not without a little more
>discussion.
Look. Please don't get upset, but I am getting really sick of hearing
this. I *NEVER* (count it: no times. That's less than once) said that
Klingon was derived from Hebrew, that it was related to Hebrew, or that it
smelled like Hebrew. I said that Hebrew discriminates between stative and
active verbs, and so it is not beyond the realm of linguistic possibility
that Klingon does as well; that is, the proposal that Klingon makes that
distinction would not be a proposal that Klingon breaks ground and does
things unheard-of among languages. Every blasted time I or Nick or someone
tries to grasp at another language to illustrate or support or just look at
options, some wiseguy has to come out and say "But this is Klingon!" Yes,
it is. And we know very little about it, so wouldn't it be keen to see
what other languages in similar binds do to handle their problems, just for
kicks? Just to see what options exist? True, it's rarely charghwI' that
says it, I guess this time was just the last straw and all. How many times
do these same people argue that their literal translation of something into
English doesn't work, so the Klingon must be wrong? That's assuming
Klingon comes from English! So can we just assume that maybe knowledge
and information is a Good Thing, rather than advocating ignorance? Please?
Sorry for the vitriol; had a rough day.
>The definitions to these verbs were written differently than those of
>other verbs in Klingon. They suggest that the verbs can be used both as
>states of being and as intransitive verbs not suggesting states of being. My
>personal opinion is that they should be considered legitimate adjectives.
Possibly. "boch" certainly sounds adjectival to me, and possibly "chep",
but we may not have enough data to go on. Working from "be ..." verbs in
the dictionary is probably not a bad place to start, but I dunno if it's
the end.
>-- charghwI'
~mark
