[91027] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID jonpIn)
Tue Nov 29 04:34:00 2011
In-Reply-To: <BAY166-W52DB0E8B18447A55BB63F8AAB30@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:33:45 +0100
From: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: KLI <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============7887202266478829238==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3010e3c5d9446e04b2dc505f
--20cf3010e3c5d9446e04b2dc505f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
jatlhpu' SuStel:
> > The semantic roles of subjects and objects in Klingon seem to change
> > all the time. I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you {mev}.
>
tlhob De'vID, jatlh:
> > Where has {mev} been used in the sense of {mevmoH}?
>
QeS 'utlh:
>
> bIjatlh 'e' yImev. yItlhutlh!
> Stop talking! Drink! (TKW p.87)
>
Interesting. Intuitively, when I scan the sentence I don't immediately
think of {mev} as taking {'e'} as the object here, but of course it
actually is. Instead, I see {yImev} "(you) stop!" and I understand it as
a command to the listener, and only then does my brain attach the {bIjatlh
'e'} "... talking" part.
QeS 'utlh:
>
> To be honest I don't see these verbs as that much of a problem. Lots of
> languages have small and select groups of these kinds of "ambitransitive"
> verbs. English, for instance: burn, break, drown, choke, scatter, fly,
> boil, fry... Ubykh has them too, so they're not an English-only thing.
> They're a little frustrating, but they're absolutely typical of natural
> Terran languages and I'm not surprised to see a few such verbs appearing
> in Klingon. Whether Marc's doing them deliberately or not is, of course,
> another story, but I don't have a problem with them and I think there's
> no reason for us to start wondering about the looseness of argument
> structure of *all* Klingon verbs as a result.
>
Another one that I just thought of is {So'}. I'm pretty sure I've seen it
used both transitively and intransitively, though I'm not sure if that was
in canon. But I agree, I don't see a problem with a few words having this
property, and there's no reason to believe that it generalises to other
verbs.
De'vID:
> > I can't think of any examples where the semantic roles of subjects and
> > objects have changed. We recently learned that {vergh} is transitive
> > (someone docks something), when some people have assumed it was
> > intransitive (the ship docks).
>
> QeS 'utlh:
> {meQ} "burn" is one, which we have attested with an object, with a non-
> agent subject, and as an adjectival.
Can you list the canon examples? {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH} has it
with a subject, which canon sentences use it with an object or as an
adjectival?
--
De'vID
--20cf3010e3c5d9446e04b2dc505f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jatlhpu' SuStel:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">> The semantic roles of subjects and objects in Klingo=
n seem to change<br>
> all the time. I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you {mev}.<br><=
/div></blockquote><div>=A0</div><div>tlhob De'vID, jatlh:</div><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">> Where has {mev} been used in the sense of {mevmoH}?<=
br></div></blockquote><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div>QeS 'utlh:<b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">
</div>bIjatlh 'e' yImev. yItlhutlh!<br>
Stop talking! Drink! (TKW p.87)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Interes=
ting. =A0Intuitively, when I scan the sentence I don't immediately thin=
k of {mev} as taking {'e'} as the object here, but of course it act=
ually is. =A0 =A0Instead, I see {yImev} "(you) stop!" and I under=
stand it as a command to the listener, and only then does my brain attach t=
he {bIjatlh 'e'} "... talking" part. =A0</div>
<div><br></div>QeS 'utlh:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
To be honest I don't see these verbs as that much of a problem. Lots of=
<br>
languages have small and select groups of these kinds of "ambitransiti=
ve"<br>
verbs. English, for instance: burn, break, drown, choke, scatter, fly,<br>
boil, fry... Ubykh has them too, so they're not an English-only thing.<=
br>
They're a little frustrating, but they're absolutely typical of nat=
ural<br>
Terran languages and I'm not surprised to see a few such verbs appearin=
g<br>
in Klingon. Whether Marc's doing them deliberately or not is, of course=
,<br>
another story, but I don't have a problem with them and I think there&#=
39;s<br>
no reason for us to start wondering about the looseness of argument<br>
structure of *all* Klingon verbs as a result.<br></blockquote><div><br></di=
v><div>Another one that I just thought of is {So'}. =A0I'm pretty s=
ure I've seen it used both transitively and intransitively, though I=
9;m not sure if that was in canon. =A0But I agree, I don't see a proble=
m with a few words having this property, and there's no reason to belie=
ve that it generalises to other verbs.</div>
<div>=A0</div><div>De'vID:</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">> I can't think of any examples where the semantic=
roles of subjects and<br>
> objects have changed. =A0We recently learned that {vergh} is transitiv=
e<br>
> (someone docks something), when some people have assumed it was<br>
> intransitive (the ship docks).<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div>QeS 'utlh:=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex;"><div class=3D"im">
</div>{meQ} "burn" is one, which we have attested with an object,=
with a non-<br>
agent subject, and as an adjectival.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Can yo=
u list the canon examples? =A0{meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH} has it with =
a subject, which canon sentences use it with an object or as an adjectival?=
</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>De'vID<br>
--20cf3010e3c5d9446e04b2dc505f--
--===============7887202266478829238==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============7887202266478829238==--
