[tlhIngan Hol] Can I say maQeHchuqchoHmoH ?

[SuStel]

On 2/1/2019 9:10 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> I often feel that you prejudice posts from me with a visceral emotion 
> that shades whatever I say before you’ve read it.


I really don't think so. You react so dramatically to everyone on the 
list, I can only assume you're the one being emotional. I'm just talking 
about grammar. I get hot sometimes, but I don't start that way.


> 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.


I didn't say you mistakenly said it. I said you said it, and that it 
showed you agreed with me that *-moH* verbs don't require objects. I 
recognized your use of objectless *-moH* as completely intentional and 
poignant.


> 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.


He did not give us a new understanding of what it meant; he clarified 
its use. Its translations in TKD include /approach, proceed, proceed on 
a course, proceed toward, go, go onward, follow a course, go away from, 
/and /come./ It is used as the example verb where TKD explains verbs 
that include a locative concept, and TKD further explains how you can 
add the locative suffix to the object of such a verb and it's redundant 
but not wrong. In the interview, Okrand is just clarifying this, and 
giving us confirmation on some verbs that include this locative notion. 
And, as I pointed out, it gives us the new idea that a locative on such 
a verb that is /not/ its object cannot be interpreted in the same way 
that the locative object would be. But, generally, Okrand was really 
just clarifying what was already said in TKD.


> 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}.


I see no such difference mentioned in the interview. Please quote where 
he makes this distinction. You may find the full article here: 
http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt


> Basically verbs like {ghoS}, {bav}, and {vegh} involve a subject 
> moving along a specific path identified by the direct object.


No. The verb *ghoS* involves moving along a specific path, which happens 
to be identified by the object. That's the meaning of the verb, not a 
property of having a locative meaning. The other verbs take objects that 
are locative. *yuQ wIbav, yuQ* is locative because it's the place you 
orbit. *lojmIt vIvegh, lojmIt* is locative because it's the place you 
move through.

That's all it is: these are verbs that inherently include a locative 
concept for its object. The object of *bav* is the thing at the center 
of your orbit. The objects of *jaH* and *leng* are your destination. The 
object of *vegh* is the portal or tunnel you pass through. And the 
object of *ghoS* is the path you're on.


> 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.


"Direct object" is a function of syntax, not semantics. The verbs are 
semantically meaningful without a direct object, because they have 
inherent meanings. That is the definition of semantics. Regardless of 
whether it has any direct object, implied or otherwise, the verb *ghoS* 
means following a course. If "pathing" was a verb in English, it would 
translate *ghoS* nicely, and no object would be expected at all.


> 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.


"Klingon is a language, not a code" is a tired argument that is not 
relevant here. No one here is treating Klingon like a code. And Google 
Translate does not translate Klingon word-by-word and suffix-by-suffix.


> If syntax was all that was important, then it probably would be a code 
> and not a language.


No, it would not. Syntax is important. Semantics is important. Each has 
its job.


> 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.


Or, at least, what /you/ understood up to that time, as you were the one 
bringing the questions and followups. /You/ kept asking about *ghoS,* so 
he told you more about *ghoS.*

We certainly benefited from the expanded explanations of both *ghoS* and 
locative-inherent verbs. But Okrand didn't deliver radically new 
revelations in that interview, just useful clarifications.


> The function of {-choH} in your selected canon example is that the 
> implied direct object (syntactically missing, but semantically implied)


No! A direct object is either present, elided, or not present. There is 
no "semantically implied." There may be some real-world entity that 
plays a certain implied semantic role to these verbs, but that's a 
semantic relationship, not a syntactic one.


> 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.


This is incorrect. *QeHchoH* means only /become angry,/ not /cease to be 
angry./ The latter would have to be *QeHHa'choH.*


> If, instead, you mean to suggest that one is causing anger, then 
> {-choH} is actually misleading.


He used *-moH* to suggest, indeed outright state, that one is causing 
anger. He used *-choH* to suggest, indeed outright state, that a state 
of anger was coming into existence where none existed before.


> 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.


This is not a syntax versus semantics argument. It has nothing to do 
with it. If you are talking about an action that wasn't happening, and 
in the moment of the sentence it begins to happen, you need *-choH.* 
Questions of agency are irrelevant. If *jIQuchchoH*/I become happy, 
/it's true whether *jIQuch'eghchoHmoH* /I make myself happy /or 
*muQuchmoH HoD*/the captain makes me happy./ If I say *jIQuch'eghmoH,* 
I'm not talking about a moment in which I make myself happy; I'm talking 
about how, in general or habitually or as a tendency, I am the cause of 
my own happiness. *jIQuch'eghmoH* is not talking about a transition.


> 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.


It's not emphasis, it's existence. If you talk about a verb that changes 
state in the moment you describe it, you need *-choH.* It's not 
optional. If you leave it off, you haven't described any kind of change.


> 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.


This has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190201/c65122d6/attachment-0016.htm>