[98765] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects with -moH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com)
Tue Jun 3 13:43:59 2014
From: lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 13:43:30 -0400
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <8D14CF4C62D961C-21EC-570BE@webmail-d244.sysops.aol.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============6808907082803311370==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4889FB91-35F9-41E0-A918-A56C06DB3241"
--Apple-Mail=_4889FB91-35F9-41E0-A918-A56C06DB3241
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
The root problem is that the canon doesn't make clear what the =
distinction is, and Okrand has not made clear what the distinction is, =
and while each of us is free to make up a distinction that might make =
sense to us, that doesn't make that artificial distinction official and =
useful to the rest of us.
We are left with questions we can't answer until Okrand chooses to =
answer them. More than likely, he just forgot that it was an adjectival =
verb (be X). He forgot that he had used it that way. So, he used it in a =
way that conflicts with that use.
He might even argue that there are two DIFFERENT verbs that happen to be =
pronounced identically, and one of them is an adjective (X is burning), =
while the other is a verb with a direct object (X burns Y). The thing =
that he's probably NOT going to do is say that you can use this as an =
adjective and you can use it with a direct object. This is something he =
has never claimed for any verb.
He doesn't like to use the words "transitive" or "intransitive", but he =
does distinguish between verbs that can be used as adjectives (which =
never take objects) and verbs that take objects. This is how we wound up =
with the adjectival verb {lo'laH), which is the only two-syllable verb =
in the vocabulary, because he slipped and used it as an adjective.
{tIn} is an adjectival verb. It can't take a direct object. You can't =
make it take a direct object (except, arguably, with {-moH}).
{nob} is a verb that can take an object. You can't use it as an =
adjective. (Okay, okay, as an "adjectival". Sometimes the pickiness of =
terminology does more to confuse than to clarify, though some find it =
fun to claim a higher authority and demand that we use the one and only =
correct term. But is this really helping people understand Klingon?)
This is the distinction I'm talking about, and if Okrand has said {qach =
meQ}, he has used {meQ} as an adjective, and therefore, you CANNOT use =
it with a direct object. If he has done so, then either he screwed up, =
or there are two DIFFERENT verbs that are spelled {meQ} and one of them =
is adjectival, while the other can take a direct object, because it's =
one of Okrand's oldest and least flexible rules that you can't use a =
verb as an adjective and also use the same verb with a direct object =
(unless you add {-moH}).
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:41 PM, Brad Wilson <bmacliam@aol.com> wrote:
> My opinion on {meQ}. While canon may seem to contradict itself =
regarding {meQ} and {meQmoH}, I see it differently.
> Something can be on fire - perhaps it is made of combustible matter - =
this is clearly {meQ}
> "Causing something to burn", ie. to enter a state of {meQ}, is clearly =
{meQmoH}, perhaps by soaking it with fuel prior to lighting it. Then it =
continues to burn, whether the actor is still around or not. (It could =
be argued that {meQchoH} might apply here also.)
> However, there is canon to support {meQ} as transitive without {-moH}. =
I don't have a problem with this. If I am burning something which does =
not have the inherent property to burn on its own, I would use {meQ}. I =
need to continue my action in order for the object to continue to burn - =
if I stop, then it stops burning.
> Your thoughts?
> gheyIl
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_4889FB91-35F9-41E0-A918-A56C06DB3241
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: =
after-white-space;"><div>The root problem is that the canon doesn't make =
clear what the distinction is, and Okrand has not made clear what the =
distinction is, and while each of us is free to make up a distinction =
that might make sense to us, that doesn't make that artificial =
distinction official and useful to the rest of =
us.</div><div><br></div><div>We are left with questions we can't answer =
until Okrand chooses to answer them. More than likely, he just forgot =
that it was an adjectival verb (be X). He forgot that he had used it =
that way. So, he used it in a way that conflicts with that =
use.</div><div><br></div><div>He might even argue that there are two =
DIFFERENT verbs that happen to be pronounced identically, and one of =
them is an adjective (X is burning), while the other is a verb with a =
direct object (X burns Y). The thing that he's probably NOT going to do =
is say that you can use this as an adjective and you can use it with a =
direct object. This is something he has never claimed for any =
verb.</div><div><br></div><div>He doesn't like to use the words =
"transitive" or "intransitive", but he does distinguish between verbs =
that can be used as adjectives (which never take objects) and verbs that =
take objects. This is how we wound up with the adjectival verb {lo'laH), =
which is the only two-syllable verb in the vocabulary, because he =
slipped and used it as an adjective.</div><div><br></div><div>{tIn} is =
an adjectival verb. It can't take a direct object. You can't make it =
take a direct object (except, arguably, with =
{-moH}).</div><div><br></div><div>{nob} is a verb that can take an =
object. You can't use it as an adjective. (Okay, okay, as an =
"adjectival". Sometimes the pickiness of terminology does more to =
confuse than to clarify, though some find it fun to claim a higher =
authority and demand that we use the one and only correct term. But is =
this really helping people understand =
Klingon?)</div><div><br></div><div>This is the distinction I'm talking =
about, and if Okrand has said {qach meQ}, he has used {meQ} as an =
adjective, and therefore, you CANNOT use it with a direct object. If he =
has done so, then either he screwed up, or there are two DIFFERENT verbs =
that are spelled {meQ} and one of them is adjectival, while the other =
can take a direct object, because it's one of Okrand's oldest and least =
flexible rules that you can't use a verb as an adjective and also use =
the same verb with a direct object (unless you add =
{-moH}).</div><br><div><div>On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:41 PM, Brad Wilson =
<<a href=3D"mailto:bmacliam@aol.com">bmacliam@aol.com</a>> =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"arial">
<div style=3D"font-size: 10pt;">
<div id=3D"AOLMsgPart_0_64a93a6c-9ed3-48f9-949c-a295e73810e3" =
style=3D"margin: 0px; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, =
255);"><pre style=3D"font-size: 9pt;"><tt><font face=3D"Arial, =
Helvetica, sans-serif">My opinion on {meQ}. While canon may seem to =
contradict itself regarding {meQ} and {meQmoH}, I see it =
differently.</font></tt></pre><pre style=3D"font-size: 9pt;"><tt><font =
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Something can be on fire - perhaps =
it is made of combustible matter - this is clearly =
{meQ}</font></tt></pre><pre style=3D"font-size: 9pt;"><font face=3D"Arial,=
Helvetica, sans-serif">"Causing something to burn", ie. to enter a =
state of {meQ}, is clearly {meQmoH}, perhaps by soaking it with fuel =
prior to lighting it. Then it continues to burn, whether the actor is =
still around or not. (It could be argued that {meQchoH} might apply here =
also.)</font></pre><pre style=3D"font-size: 9pt;"><font face=3D"Arial, =
Helvetica, sans-serif">However, there is canon to support {meQ} as =
transitive without {-moH}. I don't have a problem with this. If I am =
burning something which does not have the inherent property to burn on =
its own, I would use {meQ}. I need to continue my action in order for =
the object to continue to burn - if I stop, then it stops =
burning.</font></pre><pre style=3D"font-size: 9pt;"><font face=3D"Arial, =
Helvetica, sans-serif">Your thoughts?</font></pre><pre style=3D"font-size:=
9pt;"><font face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">gheyIl</font></pre>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_64a93a6c-9ed3-48f9-949c-a295e73810e3 -->
</div>
</font>_______________________________________________<br>Tlhingan-hol =
mailing list<br><a =
href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br>http://ma=
il.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br></blockquote></div><br></body>=
</html>=
--Apple-Mail=_4889FB91-35F9-41E0-A918-A56C06DB3241--
--===============6808907082803311370==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============6808907082803311370==--
