Good morning, I'm not sure this ever was a question, but I just talked with Marc Okrand about the verb {vech} "cross, span" and got some useful information. In the definition given at qep'a' 2018, examples were a bridge crossing a river, but also two fingers crossing. In the case of the bridge, the verb {vech} does not really mean that the bridge makes a connection between the two shores of the river, it's more the image of having two lengthy things overlaying each other and touch (visually) in one point. (This means the bridge might even be a mile long and not connect the two edges of the river, but still cross it). The way to use the verb is to say "A crosses B". In the case of the fingers, they cross each other, so you say {vechchuq nItlhDu'}. If you only say {vech nItlhDu'} the question comes: "what do they vech?" So, to say "I cross my fingers", you say {nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH}, and not {vIvechmoH}. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/Vech
(This means the bridge might even be a mile long and not connect the two edges of the river, but still cross it).
How is this possible? How can a bridge cross a river but not connect its' two banks? Is it collapsed on each end, with just a middle part levitating over the river? ~ Dana'an
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 11:05, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
(This means the bridge might even be a mile long and not connect the two edges of the river, but still cross it).
How is this possible? How can a bridge cross a river but not connect its' two banks? Is it collapsed on each end, with just a middle part levitating over the river?
Consider a bridge over a high canyon, with a river far down below. The bridge crosses the river, but does not technically join its banks together (as the banks are still separated from the ends of the bridge by a steep climb). -- De'vID
Am 17.06.2021 um 12:15 schrieb De'vID:
How is this possible? How can a bridge cross a river but not connect its' two banks? Is it collapsed on each end, with just a middle part levitating over the river?
Consider a bridge over a high canyon, with a river far down below. The bridge crosses the river, but does not technically join its banks together (as the banks are still separated from the ends of the bridge by a steep climb).
Yes, that's what I meant. The point is "cross the river" does not mean that the bridge has to start at one bank and end on the other. It can start long before it gets to the river. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/Vech
On 6/17/2021 4:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
So, to say "I cross my fingers", you say {nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH}, and not {vIvechmoH}.
Was there any discussion about using a third-person object prefix along with the -chuq suffix? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 6/17/2021 4:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
So, to say "I cross my fingers", you say {nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH}, and not {vIvechmoH}.
Am 17.06.2021 um 14:55 schrieb SuStel:
Was there any discussion about using a third-person object prefix along with the -chuq suffix?
That is indeed a very good question, and no, we did not focus on this. We did not really think about the prefixes, they followwed automatically. In the discussion, the topic was first on the verb {vIvech}, then {vIvechmoH} - and the we noticed that it need the {-chuq} suffix to say each other. Since the subject and the object of the sentence did not change ("I --> fingers") we also didn't think about the question whether this suffix woudl work there - as opposed to what TKD. Of course we all know that TKD is not complete. For the record, it was me who suggested {vIvechchuqmoH} and Okrand said that it's okay. It *might* be possible that he had forgotten about the usage of this suffix... But on the other hand, if you regard [vechchuq] as one unit, then {vI-[vechchuq]-moH} seems quite plausible. In the meantime, I try to think of other such constructions. What about "I cause him to hit himself" - {vIqIp'eghmoH}. Why not? --- Going a bit further, I think the answer is hidden in the suffix {-moH}. TKD gives this small example: {HIQoymoH} "let me hear (something)" The suffix indicates "me" as the object of the entire sentence (i.e. the -moH), but the translation reveals that the object of the verb is "something", not "me". So based on that, I would conclude that when you have a verb with {-moH}, the used prefix aims at the person being influenced without respect to what the object of the verb itself is. That would explain the usage of {vI-} in {vIvechchuqmoH}. (Very roughly said, think of -moH as a verb and translate literally: "I moH THEM to [vechchuq]") -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Type4VerbSuffixes
Also we have the: Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos ~ Dana'an
On 6/17/2021 9:16 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
On 6/17/2021 4:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
So, to say "I cross my fingers", you say {nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH}, and not {vIvechmoH}.
Am 17.06.2021 um 14:55 schrieb SuStel:
Was there any discussion about using a third-person object prefix along with the -chuq suffix?
That is indeed a very good question, and no, we did not focus on this.
We did not really think about the prefixes, they followwed automatically. In the discussion, the topic was first on the verb {vIvech}, then {vIvechmoH} - and the we noticed that it need the {-chuq} suffix to say each other. Since the subject and the object of the sentence did not change ("I --> fingers") we also didn't think about the question whether this suffix woudl work there - as opposed to what TKD.
Of course we all know that TKD is not complete.
For the record, it was me who suggested {vIvechchuqmoH} and Okrand said that it's okay. It *might* be possible that he had forgotten about the usage of this suffix... But on the other hand, if you regard [vechchuq] as one unit, then {vI-[vechchuq]-moH} seems quite plausible.
I, for one, have no trouble understanding the restriction on prefixes and reflexive suffixes as meaning, "Use of these reflexive suffixes /replaces/ the presence of an object, so use the appropriate prefix." Given that Klingon is very flexible with objects, if some other object that represents something /other/ than the reflexive entity is used, it should include the appropriate prefix.
In the meantime, I try to think of other such constructions. What about "I cause him to hit himself" - {vIqIp'eghmoH}. Why not?
---
Going a bit further, I think the answer is hidden in the suffix {-moH}. TKD gives this small example:
{HIQoymoH} "let me hear (something)"
The suffix indicates "me" as the object of the entire sentence (i.e. the -moH), but the translation reveals that the object of the verb is "something", not "me".
Not exactly. The "(something)" is in parentheses to indicate that there's an /implication/ of hearing "something," but that it isn't actually stated in the sentence. Indeed, Kruge's line in the movie is "Let me hear." We must remember that what Klingon considers an "object" is never rigorously defined. In fact, it seems that the role of "object" can be a number of different things, including direct object (*De' vIghojmoH*/I teach the information/) and indirect object (*puq vIghojmoH*/I teach the child/). We also know that direct and indirect objects can inhabit the same sentence (*puqvaD De' vIghojmoH*/I teach the child the information/), and that the verb prefix can sometimes refer to objects that aren't present (*De' mughojmoH*/He/she teaches me the information/). So I don't find it at all surprising that we can have a sentence with a reflexive suffix, causing an object to "disappear" into the verb, and then add another object referring to something else.
So based on that, I would conclude that when you have a verb with {-moH}, the used prefix aims at the person being influenced without respect to what the object of the verb itself is. That would explain the usage of {vI-} in {vIvechchuqmoH}.
I don't think you need such a specific set of criteria. It's not that you need *-moH;* it's just that *-moH* adds a whole new semantic role (causer) to the sentence, and the causer may be acting upon or towards a completely different direct or indirect object than the agent/experiencer. It's kind of an object free-for-all. The only real question is which object gets priority, and it seems to be that the direct object that the agent is acting upon has priority over any indirect object receiving the action (which gets pushed into the adverbial soup at the front with a *-vaD* added to it). Meanwhile, elided first- and second-person indirect objects can optionally hijack the prefix. With all that going on, it's no wonder the rule of "use a no-object prefix with the reflexive suffixes" gets overridden.
(Very roughly said, think of -moH as a verb and translate literally: "I moH THEM to [vechchuq]")
Say rather: *-moH* focuses your attention on the causer, not the doer, but if you can squeeze the doer in there somewhere, go for it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I haven't been able to understand the previous discussion, because - qeylIS knows - my brain lacks the "ability to understand grammar circuit". So I need to ask. Ca'Non A: Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos Ca'Non B: nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH I cross my fingers Is there any difference between A and B? Aren't they exactly the same? ~ Dana'an not only is it an ancient cat but it is a greek ancient cat too
On 6/17/2021 11:14 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
I haven't been able to understand the previous discussion, because - qeylIS knows - my brain lacks the "ability to understand grammar circuit". So I need to ask.
Ca'Non A:
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
Ca'Non B:
nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH I cross my fingers
Is there any difference between A and B? Aren't they exactly the same?
Yes, they use the same grammar. The main difference is that the first one doesn't have a prefix, so ostensibly conforms to the restriction given in TKD about prefixes with reflexive suffixes. The second one flagrantly violates it. I believe the text of TKD isn't trying to be a comprehensive rule about prefixes, but rather describes the fact that objects in English like /myself/ and /each other/ aren't objects in Klingon but are instead built into the suffix. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
This weirdness about objects with {-moH} has always bothered me. I mean, if Klingon is simply loose with what objects are, then why to we bother talking about the prefix trick when we say something like {chab HInob}? If objects are so loose, why even call it a trick? It’s just yet another loose object. It doesn’t deserve having a specific term to describe it or rules about it’s use. The only special thing about it is that it was revealed to us before all the looseness with {-moH}. charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 17, 2021, at 9:51 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/17/2021 9:16 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
On 6/17/2021 4:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
So, to say "I cross my fingers", you say {nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH}, and not {vIvechmoH}.
Am 17.06.2021 um 14:55 schrieb SuStel:
Was there any discussion about using a third-person object prefix along with the -chuq suffix?
That is indeed a very good question, and no, we did not focus on this.
We did not really think about the prefixes, they followwed automatically. In the discussion, the topic was first on the verb {vIvech}, then {vIvechmoH} - and the we noticed that it need the {-chuq} suffix to say each other. Since the subject and the object of the sentence did not change ("I --> fingers") we also didn't think about the question whether this suffix woudl work there - as opposed to what TKD.
Of course we all know that TKD is not complete.
For the record, it was me who suggested {vIvechchuqmoH} and Okrand said that it's okay. It *might* be possible that he had forgotten about the usage of this suffix... But on the other hand, if you regard [vechchuq] as one unit, then {vI-[vechchuq]-moH} seems quite plausible. I, for one, have no trouble understanding the restriction on prefixes and reflexive suffixes as meaning, "Use of these reflexive suffixes replaces the presence of an object, so use the appropriate prefix." Given that Klingon is very flexible with objects, if some other object that represents something other than the reflexive entity is used, it should include the appropriate prefix.
In the meantime, I try to think of other such constructions. What about "I cause him to hit himself" - {vIqIp'eghmoH}. Why not?
---
Going a bit further, I think the answer is hidden in the suffix {-moH}. TKD gives this small example:
{HIQoymoH} "let me hear (something)"
The suffix indicates "me" as the object of the entire sentence (i.e. the -moH), but the translation reveals that the object of the verb is "something", not "me". Not exactly. The "(something)" is in parentheses to indicate that there's an implication of hearing "something," but that it isn't actually stated in the sentence. Indeed, Kruge's line in the movie is "Let me hear."
We must remember that what Klingon considers an "object" is never rigorously defined. In fact, it seems that the role of "object" can be a number of different things, including direct object (De' vIghojmoH I teach the information) and indirect object (puq vIghojmoH I teach the child). We also know that direct and indirect objects can inhabit the same sentence (puqvaD De' vIghojmoH I teach the child the information), and that the verb prefix can sometimes refer to objects that aren't present (De' mughojmoH He/she teaches me the information).
So I don't find it at all surprising that we can have a sentence with a reflexive suffix, causing an object to "disappear" into the verb, and then add another object referring to something else.
So based on that, I would conclude that when you have a verb with {-moH}, the used prefix aims at the person being influenced without respect to what the object of the verb itself is. That would explain the usage of {vI-} in {vIvechchuqmoH}. I don't think you need such a specific set of criteria. It's not that you need -moH; it's just that -moH adds a whole new semantic role (causer) to the sentence, and the causer may be acting upon or towards a completely different direct or indirect object than the agent/experiencer. It's kind of an object free-for-all. The only real question is which object gets priority, and it seems to be that the direct object that the agent is acting upon has priority over any indirect object receiving the action (which gets pushed into the adverbial soup at the front with a -vaD added to it). Meanwhile, elided first- and second-person indirect objects can optionally hijack the prefix.
With all that going on, it's no wonder the rule of "use a no-object prefix with the reflexive suffixes" gets overridden.
(Very roughly said, think of -moH as a verb and translate literally: "I moH THEM to [vechchuq]") Say rather: -moH focuses your attention on the causer, not the doer, but if you can squeeze the doer in there somewhere, go for it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/20/2021 9:19 PM, Will Martin wrote:
This weirdness about objects with {-moH} has always bothered me. I mean, if Klingon is simply loose with what objects are, then why to we bother talking about the prefix trick when we say something like {chab HInob}? If objects are so loose, why even call it a trick? It’s just yet another loose object. It doesn’t deserve having a specific term to describe it or rules about it’s use. The only special thing about it is that it was revealed to us before all the looseness with {-moH}.
It's called the "prefix trick" because /I/ called it that. I coined the phrase. I did so scornfully, because it seemed to me that the rule was created as a lame excuse for errors by Okrand in which he just translated English without thinking, and didn't consider the very straightforward rule that the verb prefix must agree with the object. In fact, I still think Okrand was covering for sloppy, Englishy translations, but I also think this new information was something more: a sign that Okrand was thinking more carefully about the grammar of Klingon, and deepening it in response, deepening it beyond the simple "an object is an object is an object" structure it had at first. Klingon clearly had need of more complicated predicates, as was being demonstrated to him by KLI members who kept questioning his sentences and expressing frustration with the limitations of Klingon. I think he was also being asked to translate more and harder pieces, and he discovered that he needed to make Klingon more flexible to do this. The "looseness" we're talking about is not a property of *-moH.* It's a property of Klingon objects. Consider the old sentence, *qaja'pu'*/I told you./ What is the object of the sentence? Apparently, it's an elided *SoH,* because the prefix *qa-* tells us so. So everyone said "The object of *ja'* is the person spoken to." But (a) that doesn't jibe with the gloss given in TKD, where the person being spoken to would be the /indirect object,/ not the direct object, and (b) we have since seen *ja'* take other objects, like *lut.* The solution is simple: the "object" of a verb might be a direct object (acted upon) or an indirect object (receives the result of the action), depending on how the verb is used. It just so happens that verbs with *-moH* encounter object "looseness" more often because verbs with *-moH* add a new entity into the semantics of the sentence: the causer. The old entities might still be present, so you have to think carefully about what is being acted upon and what is receiving the result of the action. But this "looseness" isn't a property of *-moH* itself; it's a general property of Klingon sentences that /might/ change things up depending on what verb you're using and how you're using it. I still call it the /prefix trick/ partly to remind myself of my foolish days when I thought Klingon sentences were rigid, their syntax and semantics invariable, and partly because that's what everybody calls it now, and we don't have another phrase for it. But it's not a trick; it's just a fact of verb prefixes, that while they must agree with an /object,/ they don't necessarily have to agree with a /direct/ object. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I don’t think those were your “foolish days”. We were all struggling to figure out the rules and the exceptions. I think the language has changed. We agree, likely more than you suspect. I’ve been foolish enough to think that it shouldn’t change as much as it has. We have a tendency to think that Klingon was always the way it is and Okrand just hadn’t explained it all yet, but the glosses themselves prove that he kept a lot of stuff wide open and has been nailing down explanations in canon as he goes along. I don’t like it when he smears English stuff into it, but I understand how much easier it is than coming up with some cool, new alien way to say something. That I even have aesthetics over areas of Klingon expression is silly enough. It’s a good thing to take myself less seriously. Having just retired from work last week makes not taking myself too seriously an easier task. charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 20, 2021, at 10:00 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/20/2021 9:19 PM, Will Martin wrote:
This weirdness about objects with {-moH} has always bothered me. I mean, if Klingon is simply loose with what objects are, then why to we bother talking about the prefix trick when we say something like {chab HInob}? If objects are so loose, why even call it a trick? It’s just yet another loose object. It doesn’t deserve having a specific term to describe it or rules about it’s use. The only special thing about it is that it was revealed to us before all the looseness with {-moH}. It's called the "prefix trick" because I called it that. I coined the phrase. I did so scornfully, because it seemed to me that the rule was created as a lame excuse for errors by Okrand in which he just translated English without thinking, and didn't consider the very straightforward rule that the verb prefix must agree with the object.
In fact, I still think Okrand was covering for sloppy, Englishy translations, but I also think this new information was something more: a sign that Okrand was thinking more carefully about the grammar of Klingon, and deepening it in response, deepening it beyond the simple "an object is an object is an object" structure it had at first. Klingon clearly had need of more complicated predicates, as was being demonstrated to him by KLI members who kept questioning his sentences and expressing frustration with the limitations of Klingon. I think he was also being asked to translate more and harder pieces, and he discovered that he needed to make Klingon more flexible to do this.
The "looseness" we're talking about is not a property of -moH. It's a property of Klingon objects. Consider the old sentence, qaja'pu' I told you. What is the object of the sentence? Apparently, it's an elided SoH, because the prefix qa- tells us so. So everyone said "The object of ja' is the person spoken to." But (a) that doesn't jibe with the gloss given in TKD, where the person being spoken to would be the indirect object, not the direct object, and (b) we have since seen ja' take other objects, like lut. The solution is simple: the "object" of a verb might be a direct object (acted upon) or an indirect object (receives the result of the action), depending on how the verb is used.
It just so happens that verbs with -moH encounter object "looseness" more often because verbs with -moH add a new entity into the semantics of the sentence: the causer. The old entities might still be present, so you have to think carefully about what is being acted upon and what is receiving the result of the action. But this "looseness" isn't a property of -moH itself; it's a general property of Klingon sentences that might change things up depending on what verb you're using and how you're using it.
I still call it the prefix trick partly to remind myself of my foolish days when I thought Klingon sentences were rigid, their syntax and semantics invariable, and partly because that's what everybody calls it now, and we don't have another phrase for it. But it's not a trick; it's just a fact of verb prefixes, that while they must agree with an object, they don't necessarily have to agree with a direct object.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin