[909] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Re[2]: "movie"mey, etc. (was: RE: RESENT: Bounced Mail III)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu May 20 19:10:46 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Ken_Beesley.PARC@xerox.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Cc: Ken_Beesley.PARC@xerox.com
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 14:27:21 PDT
In-Reply-To: "Mark_Nudelman@go:com:Xerox's message of Fri, 14 May 1993 07:51:00
Mark Nudelman:
>jach HoD Qanqor:
>>But as far as what we know about Klingon, there is no basis for
>>claiming that any verb cannot take an object-bearing prefix. There
>>is absolutely no sentence you can point to anywhere in the
>>dictionary that says it is illegal to put an object-bearing prefix
>>on any specific verb. Granted, it is not clear in some cases what,
>>if anything, some combinations might mean, but it is not ipso facto
>>illegal.
> Well, actually, that was the impression I got from p.33:
> "The verb Qong _sleep_ occurs with the pronominal
> prefixes as follows:" (jIQong, bIQong, etc.)
> I took this to mean that Qong ALWAYS occurs with the
> no-object prefixes.
> To me, it doesn't matter much whether vIQong is
> ungrammatical or just nonsensical. As Krankor points out,
> no one would say it either way. I think the most important
> point is that whether or not Klingon has intransitive verbs,
> we don't know which ones they are. So until we get further
> information from Okrand or a Klingon, the point is moot.
Coming back from a few days of vacation, I see that I got quite a vehement
response from Krankor on my last Transitive vs. Intransitive message.
The job of a linguist is to look at a language and try to discover and describe
what its rules are. One does read any available descriptions of the language,
but with caution, realizing that most existing descriptions are incomplete and
all too often wrong. After examining the data, you hypothesize rules (both for
what is allowed and what is disallowed), and then you devise experiments to
test those rules. That is, you devise questions for an informant, questions
designed to reveal the rightness or wrongness of your hypothesis.
That's the linguistic method, and the scientific method as well, and I have
tried to follow it. One of my papers in HolQeD, describing my automatic
Klingon analyzer, ends with a series of questions that I hope will be passed on
to Okrand. (The one question about plurality and body parts seems to have been
answered by new data from the tape.) My Transitive vs. Intransitive message
ends the same way, with a number of very telling questions that should prove or
disprove my hypothesis. I hope that those questions as well will be passed
along to Okrand.
As for the points brought up by Mark Nudelman, I would agree that the
description on p. 33 could easily be read as meaning that Qong ("sleep") always
occurs with the no-object prefixes. It's easy to test. Just ask Okrand if the
following is OK.
?vIQong ?I-him sleep.
or would it have to be
vIQongmoH I-him sleep-cause. = I cause him to sleep.
My previous message suggests asking the same question about
?vIvem ?I-him wake_up/cease_to_sleep
vs.
vIvemmoH (vemmoH is glossed as "wake (someone) up")
and other similar pairs listed suspiciously in the wordlists.
One could also read Okrand's phrase "when there is no object" in the following
quote as his roundabout way of talking about intransitive verbs. It's quite
true that the words "transitive" and "intransitive" are not used in TKD, but
Okrand has obviously avoided most technical vocabulary in favor of informal,
sometimes roundabout description (especially in the phonology).
" The prefixes in the first column of the chart (headed 'none') are used when
there is no object; that is, when the action of the verb affects only the
subject (the 'doer')."
Again, it's easy enough to test now that Okrand is answering questions.
Mark N.
>> To me, it doesn't matter much whether vIQong is
ungrammatical or just nonsensical. As Krankor points out,
no one would say it either way. <<
If I may be allowed to differ here, the question posed here is rather central
to a linguist. If ?vIQong is ungrammatical, then it should be rejected by my
(or anyone else's) morphological analyzer. If it is just nonsensical, then it
should analyze successfully. Judging by semantic intent, beginning Klingonists
do in fact often use the subject-object prefixes inappropriately on verbs like
Qong. We correct them. If ?vIQong is ungrammatical and if an automatic
analyzer can catch that fact, then the analyzer would be that much better at
helping us all write Kosher Klingon.
Mark Again:
>>I think the most important
point is that whether or not Klingon has intransitive verbs,
we don't know which ones they are. So until we get further
information from Okrand or a Klingon, the point is moot.<<
Again, the job of a linguist is to ask the right questions and find out. The
first step is to ask if there is a transitive-intransitive distinction. I have
listed the telling questions above and in my Transitive-Intransitive message.
If there is such a distinction, as I hypothesized, then we follow up with
questions about individual verbs. I suggested starting with pub, which is
glossed simply as "boil." (The English "boil" of course can be used both as a
transitive or an intransitive verb.) On the pattern of
vem wake up, cease sleeping (v)
vemmoH wake (someone) up (v)
where Okrand appears to have gone to some trouble to distinguish what in
English we would call the intransitive and transitive uses of "wake up," I have
postulated that
1. Okrand will probably say that pub is intransitive
?pub bIQ The water is boiling
2. Okrand will probably say that the following is ungrammatical
*vIpub *I boil(intr) it.
3. Okrand will probably say that "to boil (something)" is pubmoH ("cause to
boil"). This would be the transitive reading.
bIQ pubmoH (He/she/etc) causes the water to boil.
vIpubmoH I boil it.
He might say that pub is in fact transitive, in which case
vIpub I boil(tr) it.
is perfectly OK. Then we should ask how to say "The water is boiling."
If there is no transitive-intransitive distinction, then questions about the
tr/intr subcategorization of "pub" will be meaningless.
Inquiring minds want to know. All we have to do is ask the right questions.
Ken Beesley
