Does Da necessarily require an object ?
Da is defined as "behave as, act in the manner of". Does this mean that it necessarily needs to take an object ? Can we say for instance, {choQaHmeH chay' jIDanIS ?} "in order that you help me, how do I need to behave ?" ~ changan qIj
On Mar 6, 2019, at 07:59, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Da is defined as "behave as, act in the manner of". Does this mean that it necessarily needs to take an object ?
I don’t know the answer to your question for sure, but I’m thinking most likely yes, it requires an object.
Can we say for instance, {choQaHmeH chay' jIDanIS ?} "in order that you help me, how do I need to behave ?"
I’d probably avoid saying that by saying something like “chay' jIvangnIS” or “nuq/'Iv vIDanIS” instead.
Yes, I have thought of various ways to rephrase; but that option aside, I'm wondering as to whether one can use the Da without an object. ~ changan qIj
The gloss for {Da} is “behave as” and “act in the manner of”. This is not the same as “behave”, as the gloss directly denotes the presence of an object. {nuq vIDanIS} would seem to be more grammatically correct than any formulation leading to {jIDanIS}. If we use a literal translation with the gloss: “How do I need to behave as” is technically understandable, but feels awkward and would get red ink from any writing teacher (if we don’t leave “as” dangling we get “I need to behave as how”, which is kinda muddled). Rather “I need to behave as what” is absolutely grammatically acceptable (though most people would say “what do I need to behave as”). —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2019, at 09:11, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I have thought of various ways to rephrase; but that option aside, I'm wondering as to whether one can use the Da without an object.
~ changan qIj _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 3/6/2019 9:20 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
The gloss for {Da} is “behave as” and “act in the manner of”. This is not the same as “behave”, as the gloss directly denotes the presence of an object.
{nuq vIDanIS} would seem to be more grammatically correct than any formulation leading to {jIDanIS}.
If we use a literal translation with the gloss: “How do I need to behave as” is technically understandable, but feels awkward and would get red ink from any writing teacher (if we don’t leave “as” dangling we get “I need to behave as how”, which is kinda muddled). Rather “I need to behave as what” is absolutely grammatically acceptable (though most people would say “what do I need to behave as”).
Don't rely too much on determining Klingon grammar from the published English translations. As you point out, a smooth English translation probably rearranges the words anyway. I spent years warning people not to give *qIm* an object because the published translation was /pay attention,/ not /pay attention to,/ and that restriction was not borne out in later canon. I could see *jIDa* meaning something like /I put on an act/ or /I behave in some affected way./ I can't say whether it does or doesn't mean this, but I see no reason it couldn't mean that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Curious. I would think that there would be linguistic pressure against things like {jIqIm} and even {jIyaj}. In English, for example, we drop the object since context implies it (our own form of clipping). But in Klingon I don’t see the point of changing the prefix just because the object is understood. You are understanding something, you are paying attention to something, you are behaving like something… just because the object is not explicitly given doesn’t mean that the transitive quality of the verb goes away, there is a still “something” that the verb is pointing to, even if it is understood. I’ll accept that canon is canon and reflects how Klingons use the language. That evolution of the language though just seems counterintuitive to me (but may reflect how natural languages do evolve — I’m not a linguist). It seems more likely to me that there would be a (unspoken, perhaps) rule about using no-object prefixes with many transitive verbs that can’t have intransitive meanings. yInlu’ ‘ej ghojlu’. —jevreH
On 3/6/2019 10:04 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
I would think that there would be linguistic pressure against things like {jIqIm} and even {jIyaj}.
In English, for example, we drop the object since context implies it (our own form of clipping). But in Klingon I don’t see the point of changing the prefix just because the object is understood. You are understanding something, you are paying attention to something, you are behaving like something… just because the object is not explicitly given doesn’t mean that the transitive quality of the verb goes away, there is a still “something” that the verb is pointing to, even if it is understood.
This set of prefixes is also used when an object is possible, but unknown or vague. Thus, *jIyaj* /I understand/ can be used when the speaker understands things in general, knows what is going on, or understands what another speaker has just said. It cannot, however, be used for understanding a language or understanding a person. Similarly, *maSop* /we eat/ can be used to indicate a general act of eating, but not if a specific food is mentioned. [TKD] *jIqIm* can be used in situations where you want to convey that your attention is given, without specifying exactly what you're paying attention to. *yIqIm* can be used to order somebody to pay attention to whatever is about to happen, without having to say the vague /whatever is about to happen/ every time. *jIDa* simply means you are behaving as /something,/ without mentioning what you are behaving as.
It seems more likely to me that there would be a (unspoken, perhaps) rule about using no-object prefixes with many transitive verbs that can’t have intransitive meanings.
You'd first have to convince me that there are verbs that cannot have intransitive meanings. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I would argue that from a logical/semantic standpoint, “understand” has no real intransitive meaning. The intransitive use is simply a shorthand for an implied transitive meaning. While “I understand” might an intransitive use syntactically, the actual idea being communicated by the statement is “I understand this thing/concept/abstraction/whatever”, which is a transitive concept. I think there are many verbs that operate solely transitively on a semantic level, even if we make them intransitive on a syntactic level — the syntactic intransitiveness still implies a semantic object, even if that object isn’t stated. It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow the syntactic shorthand that English does of “intranstivising” transitive verbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn’t save any time to say over {vIyaj}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate — since there is an “it” that is being understood. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2019, at 10:16, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/6/2019 10:04 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote: I would think that there would be linguistic pressure against things like {jIqIm} and even {jIyaj}.
In English, for example, we drop the object since context implies it (our own form of clipping). But in Klingon I don’t see the point of changing the prefix just because the object is understood. You are understanding something, you are paying attention to something, you are behaving like something… just because the object is not explicitly given doesn’t mean that the transitive quality of the verb goes away, there is a still “something” that the verb is pointing to, even if it is understood. This set of prefixes is also used when an object is possible, but unknown or vague. Thus, jIyaj I understand can be used when the speaker understands things in general, knows what is going on, or understands what another speaker has just said. It cannot, however, be used for understanding a language or understanding a person. Similarly, maSop we eat can be used to indicate a general act of eating, but not if a specific food is mentioned. [TKD] jIqIm can be used in situations where you want to convey that your attention is given, without specifying exactly what you're paying attention to. yIqIm can be used to order somebody to pay attention to whatever is about to happen, without having to say the vague whatever is about to happen every time.
jIDa simply means you are behaving as something, without mentioning what you are behaving as.
It seems more likely to me that there would be a (unspoken, perhaps) rule about using no-object prefixes with many transitive verbs that can’t have intransitive meanings. You'd first have to convince me that there are verbs that cannot have intransitive meanings. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 3/6/2019 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
I would argue that from a logical/semantic standpoint, “understand” has no real intransitive meaning.
What is "intransitive meaning"? /Intransitive/ is a syntactic property that means the verb has no object. If you look up /understand/ in a dictionary, you will find both transitive and intransitive senses. It just means it has no direct object. Logically, when one understands, one understands /something./ But grammar isn't about logic; it's about rules of communication. The rules say that if you don't mention the thing being acted upon, the verb is considered intransitive, and there's no problem doing this.
The intransitive use is simply a shorthand for an implied transitive meaning. While “I understand” might an intransitive use syntactically, the actual idea being communicated by the statement is “I understand this thing/concept/abstraction/whatever”, which is a transitive concept.
This is not how the grammars of English or Klingon work. Concepts are not transitive or intransitive; verbs are.
It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow the syntactic shorthand that English does of “intranstivising” transitive verbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn’t save any time to say over {vIyaj}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate — since there is an “it” that is being understood.
Using verbs intransitively is not just about shorthand or saving time. It lets us say things that are more general than a specific object would allow. We don't have to know or mention what we're understanding or paying attention to or killing or eating or singing in order to do those things. And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's explained to us, it's demonstrated for us, and it's used all the time in canon. It was settled before anybody thought to ask the question. The only thing we don't know for sure is, are there any verbs that /must/ mention an object? I don't tend to think so. Here's a possible scenario for an object-less *Da.* The captain likes his officers to show the right attitude on the job... K1: *QuchwI' vIDataH, yoHwI' DataH torgh, 'ej SeywI' DataH matlh. *K2: *maj. yonba' HoD. *K1: *maDataH ghorgh 'e' wImevlaH? *K2:*peDataH! SuDataH 'e' yImevQo'! pup yaSpu'Daj 'e' poQ HoD.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel Let me try rephrasing, and stepping away from formal syntactical terminology — since I don’t have adequate command of it. Also, I’m not questioning what canon says, I’m wonder “how” it came to be this way. When one “understands”, there must always be something (however broad, vague, or abstract) that is being understood; even if the thing being understood isn’t explicitly mentioned, it is implicitly communicated through context. This is the case for many things in English (including: “understand”, “pay attention”, “behave”). While I understand that {jIyaj} is a valid and canon construction, it seems counterintuitive to me that Klingons would not say {vIyaj}, since there is always an “it” (implied or explicitly stated) that is being understood. Changing it to {jIyaj} seems like it would have real meaning (explicitly denying the presence of an object — the thing being understood), unlike English where the object is left implied by context. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2019, at 11:02, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/6/2019 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote: I would argue that from a logical/semantic standpoint, “understand” has no real intransitive meaning. What is "intransitive meaning"? Intransitive is a syntactic property that means the verb has no object. If you look up understand in a dictionary, you will find both transitive and intransitive senses. It just means it has no direct object.
Logically, when one understands, one understands something. But grammar isn't about logic; it's about rules of communication. The rules say that if you don't mention the thing being acted upon, the verb is considered intransitive, and there's no problem doing this.
The intransitive use is simply a shorthand for an implied transitive meaning. While “I understand” might an intransitive use syntactically, the actual idea being communicated by the statement is “I understand this thing/concept/abstraction/whatever”, which is a transitive concept. This is not how the grammars of English or Klingon work. Concepts are not transitive or intransitive; verbs are.
It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow the syntactic shorthand that English does of “intranstivising” transitive verbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn’t save any time to say over {vIyaj}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate — since there is an “it” that is being understood. Using verbs intransitively is not just about shorthand or saving time. It lets us say things that are more general than a specific object would allow. We don't have to know or mention what we're understanding or paying attention to or killing or eating or singing in order to do those things.
And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's explained to us, it's demonstrated for us, and it's used all the time in canon. It was settled before anybody thought to ask the question. The only thing we don't know for sure is, are there any verbs that must mention an object? I don't tend to think so.
Here's a possible scenario for an object-less Da. The captain likes his officers to show the right attitude on the job... K1: QuchwI' vIDataH, yoHwI' DataH torgh, 'ej SeywI' DataH matlh. K2: maj. yonba' HoD. K1: maDataH ghorgh 'e' wImevlaH? K2: peDataH! SuDataH 'e' yImevQo'! pup yaSpu'Daj 'e' poQ HoD. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 17:02, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's explained to us, it's demonstrated for us, and it's used all the time in canon. It was settled before anybody thought to ask the question. The only thing we don't know for sure is, are there any verbs that *must* mention an object? I don't tend to think so.
About a year ago, mayqel asked the same question, but about {rang} (and {ngI'} was also brought up in the thread). There are some verbs which, if you used them without an object, would express a meaning which is weird or not quite right or is missing something, but that's an issue of semantics, not grammar. -- De'vID
On 3/6/2019 11:29 AM, De'vID wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 17:02, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's explained to us, it's demonstrated for us, and it's used all the time in canon. It was settled before anybody thought to ask the question. The only thing we don't know for sure is, are there any verbs that /must/ mention an object? I don't tend to think so.
About a year ago, mayqel asked the same question, but about {rang} (and {ngI'} was also brought up in the thread).
There are some verbs which, if you used them without an object, would express a meaning which is weird or not quite right or is missing something, but that's an issue of semantics, not grammar.
The grammatical difference is that *rang* can take an object (the thing the subject is responsible for) -- and it would be weird for it not to have an object -- while *ngoy' *can't. That's what Okrand said about that. And it sort of answers my question about finding a transitive-only verb, except when you want an intransitive alternative you've got a whole new verb you can go to. *Da* doesn't have that, so it's not quite the same situation. But, as you say, that's semantics, not syntax. Just because you wouldn't have a reason to say something doesn't mean it would be considered grammatically incorrect if you did say it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
De'vID:
About a year ago, mayqel asked the same question, but about {rang} (and {ngI'} was also brought up in the thread).
Good memory. And as a matter of fact, I have asked *exactly* the same question about DIl too. But since I don't know whether conclusions from one verb, apply to the other verbs as well, I asked again. And you bet, that the next similar verb that comes to mind, I will ask again, faster than you can say "transitive". ~ changan qIj
On 3/6/2019 9:06 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Mar 6, 2019, at 07:59, mayqel qunen'oS<mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Da is defined as "behave as, act in the manner of". Does this mean that it necessarily needs to take an object ?
I don’t know the answer to your question for sure, but I’m thinking most likely yes, it requires an object.
I think it probably doesn't /require/ an object, but you'd be hard-pressed to find uses for it that don't require an object.
Can we say for instance, {choQaHmeH chay' jIDanIS ?} "in order that you help me, how do I need to behave ?"
I’d probably avoid saying that by saying something like “chay' jIvangnIS” or “nuq/'Iv vIDanIS” instead.
Definitely these. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Here are the examples of {Da} that I know of: nepwI' Daba' He is obviously lying. (TKD) HaDlu'meH, QuSlu'meH, SuDlu'meH lojmIt Da logh Hop Hut tengchaH. vaj loghDaq lenglaHtaH Humanpu' space station Deep Space Nine is the gateway for the exploration, intrigue and and enterprise that mark the continuation of the human adventure into space... (S99) yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD. Gowron... named leader of the High Council by Captain Jean-Luc Picard, who was acting as Arbiter of Succession. (S25) SuvwI' DameH puqloDwI' vIghojHa'moH DaH 'e' vItlhoj I see now, I have failed to raise my son a man. (PB) jIlay'ta' 'ej batlh jIpabta' vaj choDanIS I have kept my word of honor, and so should you (PB) For another types of "behave" see {Qaq} "behave falsely honorably, behave in a falsely honorable manner" (HolQeD 12.3) and {tIw} "behave/react emotionally" (qepHom 2017). Regardng the latter, Lieven asked Okrand the same question mayqel did (qepHom 2017 p.13): LLL: Can {tIw} take an object? As with meaning of "feeling emotions", being one's own, or someone else emotions? MO: No. I don't think it can take an object. You'd probably say something like: {cheghDI' bangwI' jItIw}. Lieven later forwarded (2/02/2018) another example from Okrand: DaghIjlu'chugh bItIwqu' Fear speaks very loud. ("If you're scared, you'll react really emotionally") -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -----Original Message----- From: mayqel qunen'oS Da is defined as "behave as, act in the manner of". Does this mean that it necessarily needs to take an object ? Can we say for instance, {choQaHmeH chay' jIDanIS ?} "in order that you help me, how do I need to behave ?"
participants (6)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel