<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/1/2019 9:10 AM, Will Martin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">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.</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I didn't say you mistakenly said it. I said you said it, and that
it showed you agreed with me that <b>-moH</b> verbs don't require
objects. I recognized your use of objectless <b>-moH</b> as
completely intentional and poignant.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>He did not give us a new understanding of what it meant; he
clarified its use. Its translations in TKD include <i>approach,
proceed, proceed on a course, proceed toward, go, go onward,
follow a course, go away from, </i>and <i>come.</i> 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 <i>not</i> 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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<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}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I see no such difference mentioned in the interview. Please quote
where he makes this distinction. You may find the full article
here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt">http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<div class=""> Basically verbs like {ghoS}, {bav}, and {vegh}
involve a subject moving along a specific path identified by the
direct object.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>No. The verb <b>ghoS</b> 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. <b>yuQ wIbav, yuQ</b>
is locative because it's the place you orbit. <b>lojmIt vIvegh,
lojmIt</b> is locative because it's the place you move through.</p>
<p>That's all it is: these are verbs that inherently include a
locative concept for its object. The object of <b>bav</b> is the
thing at the center of your orbit. The objects of <b>jaH</b> and
<b>leng</b> are your destination. The object of <b>vegh</b> is
the portal or tunnel you pass through. And the object of <b>ghoS</b>
is the path you're on.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"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 <b>ghoS</b> means following a course. If
"pathing" was a verb in English, it would translate <b>ghoS</b>
nicely, and no object would be expected at all.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<div class="">If syntax was all that was important, then it
probably would be a code and not a language.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>No, it would not. Syntax is important. Semantics is important.
Each has its job.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<div class=""> 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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Or, at least, what <i>you</i> understood up to that time, as you
were the one bringing the questions and followups. <i>You</i>
kept asking about <b>ghoS,</b> so he told you more about <b>ghoS.</b></p>
<p>We certainly benefited from the expanded explanations of both <b>ghoS</b>
and locative-inherent verbs. But Okrand didn't deliver radically
new revelations in that interview, just useful clarifications.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<div class="">The function of {-choH} in your selected canon
example is that the implied direct object (syntactically
missing, but semantically implied)</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This is incorrect. <b>QeHchoH</b> means only <i>become angry,</i>
not <i>cease to be angry.</i> The latter would have to be <b>QeHHa'choH.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<div class="">If, instead, you mean to suggest that one is causing
anger, then {-choH} is actually misleading.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>He used <b>-moH</b> to suggest, indeed outright state, that one
is causing anger. He used <b>-choH</b> to suggest, indeed
outright state, that a state of anger was coming into existence
where none existed before.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">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.</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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 <b>-choH.</b> Questions of agency are irrelevant. If <b>jIQuchchoH</b><i>
I become happy, </i>it's true whether <b>jIQuch'eghchoHmoH</b>
<i>I make myself happy </i>or <b>muQuchmoH HoD</b><i> the
captain makes me happy.</i> If I say <b>jIQuch'eghmoH,</b> 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. <b>jIQuch'eghmoH</b> is not
talking about a transition.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<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.<br>
2. To emphasize the moment that the state or action changed. To
highlight the starting moment as part of a time stamp.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>It's not emphasis, it's existence. If you talk about a verb that
changes state in the moment you describe it, you need <b>-choH.</b>
It's not optional. If you leave it off, you haven't described any
kind of change.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65C1B9F0-5CA2-4836-A5CD-EDC37A68BC1F@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with the issue at hand.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>