<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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}.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The two functions of {-choH} are:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. To emphasize a change of state or action, as opposed to the simple occurrence of the state or action.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2. To emphasize the moment that the state or action changed. To highlight the starting moment as part of a time stamp.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ironically, I’m apparently a bad communicator. Sincere apologies for that.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ ‘utlh</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 31, 2019, at 6:40 PM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/31/2019 5:24 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">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.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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)”. <br class="">
</div>
</blockquote><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">It's not really a special case. <b class="">ghoS</b> doesn't imply a
direct object any more than <b class="">Suv</b> implies a direct object,
and you did not hesitate to write <b class="">jISuvmoH.</b><br class="">
</p><p class="">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. <b class="">jISuv</b><i class="">
I fight.</i> Whom or what I fight is left vague or general, but
obviously I'm fighting someone or something.</p><p class="">This is no different with <b class="">ghoS.</b> The given translation is
made very explicit because <i class="">go</i> is insufficient for an
English speaker to understand the connection between <b class="">ghoS</b>
and its object, but once you understand that connection, it's
grammatically no different to <b class="">ghoS</b> something than it is to
<b class="">Suv</b> something. <b class="">ghoS</b> 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.</p><p class="">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. <i class="">Object</i> 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 <b class="">jIghoS,</b> then
the course I follow may exist, but it is not the object of the
sentence.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com" class="">
<div class="">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.</div>
</blockquote><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">You are outrageously overstating what Okrand said in the
interview. He gave no such absolutes. <b class="">ghoS</b> is the act of
following a course, so naturally the idea of a course is inherent
in the action, <i class="">but there is no syntactic requirement for a
course to be listed.</i> Just as <b class="">Suv</b> 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, <b class="">ghoS</b> doesn't always have an implied object
of a course; the course is inherent in the verb itself. <b class="">ghoS</b>
means <i class="">follow a course</i> all by itself.</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com" class="">
<div class=""> 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.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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.”</div>
</blockquote><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">Note that he declared that the locative-inherentness of these
verbs makes a distinction between <b class="">juH vIghoS</b> and <b class="">juHDaq
jIghoS,</b> but it's not actually deducible just from the
grammar given in TKD. Prior to Okrand's declaration, we were
perfectly able to analyze <b class="">juH vIghoS</b> and <b class="">juHDaq jIghoS</b>
as meaning exactly the same thing. It took an Okrandian decree to
change this.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com" class="">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.</blockquote><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class=""><b class="">juHDaq vIghoS</b> can mean <i class="">I follow it (a course) at home,
</i>or it can mean <i class="">I go home.</i> For the latter, the <b class="">-Daq</b>
on <b class="">juH</b> 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.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com" class="">Klingons
usually have a reason for using a suffix.</blockquote><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">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.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>