[tlhIngan Hol] Can I say maQeHchuqchoHmoH ?

Fri Feb 1 06:10:07 PST 2019

I often feel that you prejudice posts from me with a visceral emotion that shades whatever I say before you’ve read it. We have a history, so I understand that. I then have to take a breath and make a sincere effort to not respond in kind.

First, I did not slip up and mistakenly say {jISuvmoH}. I quite intentionally said that to please you and make it clear that I agree with you in terms of syntax. You seem to have missed that entirely. The suffix {-moH} does not require a syntactic direct object. I get that. I have no interest in suggesting otherwise.

I had no intention of exaggerating Okrand’s explanation of {ghoS}. He spent more time on that one verb than anything else in the interview, and what he said was quite new, quite intentional, giving us a new understanding of what it meant.

His point was, from my current interpretation, that the difference between {leng} and {ghoS} is similar in character to the difference between {-pu’} and {-ta’}. There’s an intentionality to {ghoS}. Basically verbs like {ghoS}, {bav}, and {vegh} involve a subject moving along a specific path identified by the direct object.

You are completely correct that syntacticly there is no requirement of a direct object. My point was that these verbs are semantically meaningless without there being a direct object implied, if not stated.

The specific example you gave highlights this, because of the suffix {-choH}, which is not mentioned in the translation, any more than the direct object was. Okrand doesn’t mechanically translate word by word  and suffix by suffix like Google Translate does. He expresses a meaning in Klingon and then expresses something like the same meaning in English. The meaning is not exactly the same because different languages color the expression of every idea. Klingon is a language, not a code.

If syntax was all that was important, then it probably would be a code and not a language. The specifics of meaning of each word is often difficult to translate well. It’s the biggest challenge when working with any two languages. This is why Okrand felt it important to place so much emphasis on the subtlety of meaning of {ghoS} that he apparently believed that we Klingonists were not showing evidence that we understood up to that time.

The function of {-choH} in your selected canon example is that the implied direct object (syntactically missing, but semantically implied) is, in fact, the thing that is changed. Before the change and after the change, the ship is moving. The act of moving has not changed. The unmentioned course is the thing that changes when you {ghoSchoH}.

This is remarkably different from {QeH}. You can change the state of {QeH}, and that could be a change in either direction, from non-anger to anger (as you and several other seem to think is the exclusive possibility), or it can change from anger to non-anger. If your point is to suggest change, then that is what you are suggesting.

If, instead, you mean to suggest that one is causing anger, then {-choH} is actually misleading. It’s vague and distracting from your point. It requires you to know what the state of anger was, and what it has become by the change. The far simpler idea of causing anger is almost certainly closer to the meaning intended.

EVERY verb could ALWAYS use {-choH} if all you mean is that before the action, the action wasn’t happening, but now that you are acting, there is a CHANGE to the action happening. Syntactically this is true. Semantically, {-choH} is not appropriate, unless the change is the focus of the expression.

The two functions of {-choH} are:

1. To emphasize a change of state or action, as opposed to the simple occurrence of the state or action.

2. To emphasize the moment that the state or action changed. To highlight the starting moment as part of a time stamp.

You are right in general about syntax. Meanwhile, the syntax exists to serve the semantic function of expressing an idea. If you have perfect syntax with poor semantic function, then you aren’t communicating very well. It’s like perfectly enunciating the wrong words. There’s clarity, and then, there’s Clarity.

My interest is in helping people communicate better with the Klingon language. Yes, it is important to get the syntax right. It is important to understand the syntax rules. But it’s also important to know if your perfect syntactic construction is meaningful.

Ironically, I’m apparently a bad communicator. Sincere apologies for that.

charghwI’ ‘utlh

> On Jan 31, 2019, at 6:40 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 1/31/2019 5:24 PM, Will Martin wrote:
>> You found a great canon example, and I do not doubt, especially given the new understanding of how {-moH} works, that you are generally right. I’m sure there are plenty of situations where we can use {-moH} on a verb with no direct object. {SuvwI’ jIH. jISuvmoH.} "I am a soldier. I cause fighting." I don’t have to be specific about who I cause to fight.
>> 
>> Your specific canon example is somewhat of a special case, since the very definition of {ghoS} implies a direct object. It means, “approach, go away from, proceed, come, follow (a course)”. 
> 
> It's not really a special case. ghoS doesn't imply a direct object any more than Suv implies a direct object, and you did not hesitate to write jISuvmoH.
> 
> When you do not include an object on a verb that could take one, it's understood that the verb is acting on a vague, general object. That object is NOT syntactically part of the sentence. jISuv I fight. Whom or what I fight is left vague or general, but obviously I'm fighting someone or something.
> 
> This is no different with ghoS. The given translation is made very explicit because go is insufficient for an English speaker to understand the connection between ghoS and its object, but once you understand that connection, it's grammatically no different to ghoS something than it is to Suv something. ghoS is a perfectly normal word. It's just not equivalent to just one English word, so explaining it takes some time. But once you know what it is, it's simple and       unremarkable.
> 
> Please understand the difference between the existence of an object and the existence of an entity that would be an object if the entity were mentioned. Object is a syntactic role of a word in a sentence. If a word does not appear in a sentence, it has no syntactic role in that sentence. If jIghoS, then the course I follow may exist, but it is not the object of the sentence.
> 
> 
> 
>> In the HolQeD interview, Okrand elaborated on the special nature of the verb {ghoS}. It doesn’t just mean to move around or to change one’s location. It implies a course. It ALWAYS implies a course. You can state the course as a direct object, if the course has a name, or you can use as a direct object any location associated with the course. It could be the starting point, or the target, or just some location along the way. Most commonly, it’s the destination. Or you can omit mention of the course, but, the course is always there. The verb {ghoS} is meaningless without a course.
> 
> You are outrageously overstating what Okrand said in the interview. He gave no such absolutes. ghoS is the act of following a course, so naturally the idea of a course is inherent in the action, but there is no syntactic requirement for a course to be listed. Just as Suv implies some kind of fight occurring, even if you don't syntactically have to mention any fight. The word itself contains the meaning you're discussing. No, ghoS doesn't always have an implied object of a course; the course is inherent in the verb itself. ghoS means follow a course all by itself.
> 
> 
> 
>> Otherwise, you should use {leng} or maybe {vIH}. It’s special in the same way that {vegh} is special. {leng} and {vIH} might or might not have a course, but {ghoS} and {vegh} imply moving along a specific path.
>> 
>> That’s why you can say {juH vIghoS} and {juHDaq jIghoS}. They are both grammatically correct, and it would seem that they mean the same thing, but in the interview, he clarified that the first one means, "I’m moving along the course associated with home,” while the second one actually means, “I’m in/at my home, and I’m moving along a course with no explicit identification of what that course might be.”
> 
> Note that he declared that the locative-inherentness of these verbs makes a distinction between juH vIghoS and juHDaq jIghoS, but it's not actually deducible just from the grammar given in TKD. Prior to Okrand's declaration, we were perfectly able to analyze juH vIghoS and juHDaq jIghoS as meaning exactly the same thing. It took an Okrandian decree to change this.
> 
> 
> 
>> I think he even said that if you said, {juHDaq vIghoS}, the meaning is that you are in/at home, and you are moving along a course.
> 
> juHDaq vIghoS can mean I follow it (a course) at home, or it can mean I go home. For the latter, the -Daq on juH would be considered redundant and unnecessary, but not out-and-out wrong. There is no actual prohibition on putting type 5 suffixes on objects — the example in TKD 3.5.5 actually does this — and this is a case where you can do so, even if doing so makes Klingons look at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
>> Klingons usually have a reason for using a suffix.
> 
> You're about to indulge in what I think of as an "a Klingon would never" argument. I don't usually find them productive for understanding the grammar. They're useful for asking how a Klingon would respond to something, but not in understanding the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190201/66b2d758/attachment-0015.htm>