[tlhIngan Hol] Clarification on SIch

[SuStel]

On 4/10/2019 2:03 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:02 PM SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     On 4/10/2019 12:48 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>>     It seems this behavior is seen in Klingon verbs like *meQ*, where
>>     *-moH* is sometimes dropped. Perhaps this happens due to your
>>     out-of-universe explanation, but an in-universe explanation would
>>     be the desire for brevity, combined with pragmatics.
>
>     Wait, who determined that *-moH* is sometimes dropped from *meQ,*
>     and how did they determine it? I recognize that *meQ* is first
>     defined and used for us as /burn /and is used several times with
>     the subject being the thing that is on fire, and that KGT used it
>     transitively with the thing on fire as the object, but how do you
>     go from that to saying the mechanism behind this is a dropped
>     *-moH? *How do you know it isn't just that the subject and object
>     of the verb are flexible in the same way that English /burn/ is?
>     (Which is probably the reason why the usage changed.) Or some
>     other explanation I haven't thought of?
>
> *meQ* used transitively is synonymous with *meQmoH*, right? So you can 
> say *meQmoH* if you like, or you can dispense with *-moH*. But yes, 
> there's no telling whether the transitive or intransitive sense came 
> first.

The fact that you can (apparently) say *meQ* or *meQmoH* to mean the 
same thing doesn't mean that one necessarily arises from a dropping or 
adding of *-moH* for brevity or pragmatics. That's one possible reason, 
but there are others.

And we don't actually /know/ that you can say *meQmoH* and mean /burn 
(something)./ Maybe the existence of transitive *meQ* means Klingons 
don't accept the use of *meQmoH* at all, because that would be silly. 
I'm not saying this is the case, just that we don't know.

You can use the word whichever way you want, and I can't say anything 
against it. But you can't claim that the *meQ/meQmoH* difference is 
specifically because of a dropped *-moH,* let alone that the *-moH* is 
dropped for the sake of brevity.


> If *meQ* is just flexible like English /burn/, wouldn't you like to 
> know what other Klingon verbs are flexible in this way?

Not really. I'd like to know the correct subjects and objects to use for 
verbs. If some of them are flexible, sure, I'd like to know that. But 
I'm not particularly hoping for them, and I'm certainly not proposing a 
mechanism by which other verbs might also arise the same way.

But I don't look forward to finding Englishisms in Klingon.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190410/2234920f/attachment-0002.htm>