There was a discussion on Facebook about whether *-lI'* needs to be intentional progress or not. I'm curious what other list members think. The question: does the verb suffix *-lI'* imply that an agent intentionally set up an end to a process? The arguments in favor: * TKD p. 43 says "*-lI'*, on the other hand, can be used only when there is an implied goal." If something has a goal, someone must have set the process in motion toward that goal. * There are no canonical examples of *-lI'* being used where an agent hasn't set the process in motion toward the goal. * TKD p. 43 says "It is possible to consider *-lI'* a /continuous/ counterpart of *-ta',* and *-taH* a /continuous/ counterpart of *-pu'.*" The difference between *-pu'* and *-ta'* is that the latter implies intentionality, so the difference between *-taH* and *-lI'* is also that the latter implies intentionality. The arguments against: * TKD p. 42 says "Unlike *-taH,* however, *-lI'* implies that the activity has a known goal or a definite stopping point." A definite stopping point is mentioned as an alternative to a known goal, and such does not imply intentional agency. * The example of *vIlI'lI'* on TKD p. 42 says "This word implies that data are in the process of being transmitted, but that there is a finite amount of data, so there will be a definite end to the transmission." This explanation does not reference the transmitter's goal in sending data, only the known end of transmission when there is no more data. The sender may have had a goal, but the explanation this word doesn't mention that. * There are so few canonical examples of *-lI'* that lacking examples of non-intentional progress is not surprising. The arguments in favor say that a sentence like *pumlI' nagh* to refer to a stone that is falling to the ground due to, say, a landslide, is ungrammatical. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 25.02.2017 um 20:36 schrieb SuStel:
There was a discussion on Facebook about whether *-lI'* needs to be intentional progress or not. I'm curious what other list members think.
Interesting question. The more I think about this, the more complicated it gets. My first reaction to your question is NO. When I send data, of course I know that it will be finished soon, but it is not my personal "intention" to have it finished. So far the short answer. ------- But I do understand the confusion. Since {-ta'} is described as a non continuous counterpart to {-lI'}, there seems to be some intention. Saying {pumta' nagh} sounds like the stone has fallen by its own will. This shifts the question a bit to a different topic: Can {-ta'} and {-lI'} be used with non-living beings? That's what the intentionality implies. Only living beings can do something with an intention. Generally spoken, I would suggest to avoid aspect suffixes, or at least not to use them too often. When you just say {pum nagh} the meaning is quite the same. It's falling, and it certainly will stop. For instance, see the word {Dor} "end": We all know that a period of time will end somewhere, but you do not say {DorlI' jaj}.
The arguments in favor say that a sentence like *pumlI' nagh* to refer to a stone that is falling to the ground due to, say, a landslide, is ungrammatical.
I would not be so strict to say that it is ungrammatical, because technically spoken (TKD) you may add it to the verb, but I would wonder if it was the stone's decision to do it: TKD says: {-ta'} is used when an activity was deliberately undertaken, the implication being that someone set out to do something and in fact did it. When I take this literally, {pumta' nagh} is nonsense. Since {-lI'} is the continous counterpart of {-ta'}, {pumlI' nagh} is nonsense as well. quod erat demonstrandum. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
I had some more thoughts about this and what I said, and found the answer to my own question: TKD gives the example {chollI'} "it (the torpedo) is getting closer" "when it is known that the missile has been aimed at that target." This does confirm that the thing does not itself have the intention to do what it does, a torpedoe does not "think" or "intend" to do what it does. The speaker does also not "intend" what is happening. He is neutral as describing what is going on: {chollI' peng} is to me the same as {pumlI' nagh}. At least I found the explanation to what was my first reaction: Am 26.02.2017 um 10:45 schrieb Lieven:
My first reaction to your question is NO. When I send data, of course I know that it will be finished soon, but it is not my personal "intention" to have it finished. So far the short answer.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 2/26/2017 6:32 AM, Lieven wrote:
TKD gives the example {chollI'} "it (the torpedo) is getting closer"
"when it is known that the missile has been aimed at that target."
This does confirm that the thing does not itself have the intention to do what it does, a torpedoe does not "think" or "intend" to do what it does. The speaker does also not "intend" what is happening. He is neutral as describing what is going on: {chollI' peng} is to me the same as {pumlI' nagh}.
The restrictive side of the argument says that /someone/ fired the torpedo and set its goal intentionally, and it is the firer's perspective that is generating the *-lI'.* Do you disagree with this argument? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 26.02.2017 um 13:14 schrieb SuStel:
The restrictive side of the argument says that /someone/ fired the torpedo and set its goal intentionally, and it is the firer's perspective that is generating the *-lI'.* Do you disagree with this argument?
I'm not sure yet, but without answering your question, I'd like to ask a different question: Would there be a difference between a stone falling due to the wind moving it and my intentionally making it drop? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 2/26/2017 12:35 PM, Lieven wrote:
Would there be a difference between a stone falling due to the wind moving it and my intentionally making it drop?
Unless you are intentionally personifying the wind and giving it an objective of making the stone hit the ground, the restrictive argument would say yes, there is a difference: if you dropped the stone intending that its goal is the ground you could say *pumlI'* (or *pumtaH*); if the stone fell off a cliff because of a gust of wind, you could only say *pumtaH. * The non-restrictive argument would say there is no difference: the agent's intentions are not described by *-lI',* the speaker is merely describing an action progressing toward a known stopping point. A rock pushed off a cliff by a gust of wind could be said to be *pumlI'* because it is making progress toward the known stopping point of the ground. -- SuStel http://www.trimboli.name/
Am 26.02.2017 um 19:19 schrieb SuStel:
A rock pushed off a cliff by a gust of wind could be said to be *pumlI'* because it is making progress toward the known stopping point of the ground.
This is what I think too. So {pumlI' nagh} is not ungrammatical, right? Being on this track, {-lI'} does not require the intention of anyone, only the known end of the action. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 26 February 2017 at 10:45, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
But I do understand the confusion. Since {-ta'} is described as a non continuous counterpart to {-lI'}, there seems to be some intention. Saying {pumta' nagh} sounds like the stone has fallen by its own will.
{-ta'} indicates intention behind the action, but it doesn't necessarily indicate intention on the part of the subject of the verb. {pumta' nagh} is fine, if someone pushed the stone intentionally. -- De'vID
Am 27.02.2017 um 11:59 schrieb De'vID:
{-ta'} indicates intention behind the action, but it doesn't necessarily indicate intention on the part of the subject of the verb. {pumta' nagh} is fine, if someone pushed the stone intentionally.
Is this clearly defined, or is it your interpretation? (I'm not being mean, this is a serious neutral question) :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 27 February 2017 at 12:02, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 27.02.2017 um 11:59 schrieb De'vID:
{-ta'} indicates intention behind the action, but it doesn't necessarily indicate intention on the part of the subject of the verb. {pumta' nagh} is fine, if someone pushed the stone intentionally.
Is this clearly defined, or is it your interpretation?
It's often overlooked that each section in TKD 4.2.X describes just who or what is affected by each type of suffix. For example, type 2 describes "how much choice the subject has", while type 6 show "how sure the speaker is". Type 7 explicitly says the suffix is about "the action" of the verb. {So'wI' chu'lu'ta'} is in TKD, and has an indefinite subject. -- De'vID
Am 27.02.2017 um 12:10 schrieb De'vID:
{-ta'} indicates intention behind the action, but it doesn't necessarily indicate intention on the part of the subject of the verb. {pumta' nagh} is fine, if someone pushed the stone intentionally.
more:
It's often overlooked that each section in TKD 4.2.X describes just who or what is affected by each type of suffix. For example, type 2 describes "how much choice the subject has", while type 6 show "how sure the speaker is". Type 7 explicitly says the suffix is about "the action" of the verb.
It further says that the {-ta'} suffix "is used when an activity was deliberately undertaken, the implication being that someone set out to do something and in fact did it."
{So'wI' chu'lu'ta'} is in TKD, and has an indefinite subject.
Yes, true, but still the indefinite /subject/ did this intentionally. All the (few) canon examples I can find in TKD, TKW and Monopoly have the subject intenting/deciding to do something. I have read all of chapter 4.2.7 carefully, and I think you can pin it down to two sorts of suffixes with two subclasses: 1) completed a) general / b) intentional (i.e. "deliberatly undertaken") 2) continous a) general / b) intentional (i.e. "known goal") I certainly do know that we can never be 100% sure without help from Maltz or canon examples, but in this case, as long as we don't have better examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in the Heghbat Ritual. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
I wrote:
as long as we don't have better examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in the Heghbat Ritual.
I'd like to add that I do accept {HeghlI'}: even without dying intentionally, the goal is known. With this, I should accept {pumlI' nagh} as well. ... Ehm... Yeah. I said that before. Nothing new then :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
Lieven wrote:
as long as we don't have better examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in the Heghbat Ritual.
I'd like to add that I do accept {HeghlI'}: even without dying intentionally, the goal is known.
to add wood to the fire, here are examples of {-lI'} from the {paq'batlh}: Heghrup loSlI' [Waiting for Death to Come] (Chapter title) SaqSubDaq pagh Qoylu' Qong SuvwI'pu' puqpu' rur Heghrup loSlI' juH qachchajDaq juH qachchajDaq Heghrup loSlI' Heghrup In the *Saq'sub* all is quiet, Its warriors asleep, like children Waiting for death to come In their homes, in their homes, Waiting for death to come, Death to come. yatlh luqara' puqloD wa'DIch qenglI' Lukara, pregnant of ["carrying"] their first-born son Daq HopHa'Daq qa'chaj nejlI' qotar qempa'QeH je qeylIS He tlha'meH qamchIy veng ghoSlI' qotar nItebHa' yIntaHmeH Sanchaj luqaD nItebHa' SuvlI' ghu'vam qellI' qotar tuH molor 'ach ghur QeH 'ej pe'vIl HarghlI' Unfortunately, I don't have the published translations for some of these. I'd be grateful if someone could oblige. -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
On 2/28/2017 10:20 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
to add wood to the fire, here are examples of {-lI'} from the {paq'batlh}:
None of them are used to describe an agentless action, lending credence to the argument that the dearth of agentless *-lI'* shows that it isn't allowed. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 28.02.2017 um 16:26 schrieb SuStel:
None of them are used to describe an agentless action, lending credence to the argument that the dearth of agentless *-lI'* shows that it isn't allowed.
Could you rephrase that, so that a non-native english speaking non-linguist can understand, please. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 2/28/2017 11:45 AM, Lieven wrote:
Am 28.02.2017 um 16:26 schrieb SuStel:
None of them are used to describe an agentless action, lending credence to the argument that the dearth of agentless *-lI'* shows that it isn't allowed.
Could you rephrase that, so that a non-native english speaking non-linguist can understand, please.
One of the three arguments made to support the idea that *-lI'* can only be used when someone /intends/ the action to reach a goal is that of all the canonical examples of *-lI',* none involve an action someone did not choose a goal for. "If *-lI'* can be used for stopping points not intended by anybody," goes the argument, "why don't we see any examples of this in the canon?" Voragh listed seven examples of *-lI'* from /paq'batlh,/ all of which are about actions in which someone intends a specific outcome. With an even greater number of examples of *-lI'* that do not show that someone set up a goal intentionally, the "why haven't we seen any?" argument grows stronger. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 2/28/2017 11:56 AM, SuStel wrote:
With an even greater number of examples of *-lI'* that do not show that someone set up a goal intentionally, the "why haven't we seen any?" argument grows stronger.
Correction: With an even greater number of examples of *-lI'* that do not show that someone DID NOT set up a goal intentionally... -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 27 February 2017 at 14:41, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I certainly do know that we can never be 100% sure without help from Maltz or canon examples, but in this case, as long as we don't have better examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in the Heghbat Ritual.
HIvchu'mo' Heghta'. -- De'vID
On 27 February 2017 at 14:41, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I certainly do know that we can never be 100% sure without help from Maltz or canon examples, but in this case, as long as we don't have better examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in the Heghbat Ritual.
Am 28.02.2017 um 17:38 schrieb De'vID:
HIvchu'mo' Heghta'.
You mean like {targh vIHIvchu'mo', Heghta' targh}? Still looks strange to me. Lieven.
On 2/28/2017 11:51 AM, Lieven wrote:
On 27 February 2017 at 14:41, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I certainly do know that we can never be 100% sure without help from Maltz or canon examples, but in this case, as long as we don't have better examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in the Heghbat Ritual.
Am 28.02.2017 um 17:38 schrieb De'vID:
HIvchu'mo' Heghta'.
You mean like {targh vIHIvchu'mo', Heghta' targh}?
Still looks strange to me
The explanation of *-ta'* says "the implication [is] that someone set out to do something and in fact did it." Presumably, the /something/ of that explanation is the action described by the verb. If that is the case, then *Heghta' targh* makes no sense. The *targh* does the action *Hegh,* but does not set out to do it. Whether someone else set out to make the targ die is not what the explanation of *-ta'* addresses (that sounds more like *-moH*). You can only say *Heghpu' targh.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 12:02 -0500, SuStel wrote:
On 2/28/2017 11:51 AM, Lieven wrote:
On 27 February 2017 at 14:41, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I certainly do know that we can never be 100% sure without help from Maltz or canon examples, but in this case, as long as we don't have better examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in the Heghbat Ritual.
Am 28.02.2017 um 17:38 schrieb De'vID:
HIvchu'mo' Heghta'.
You mean like {targh vIHIvchu'mo', Heghta' targh}?
Still looks strange to me
The explanation of *-ta'* says "the implication [is] that someone set out to do something and in fact did it." Presumably, the /something/ of that explanation is the action described by the verb.
If that is the case, then *Heghta' targh* makes no sense. The *targh* does the action *Hegh,* but does not set out to do it. Whether someone else set out to make the targ die is not what the explanation of *-ta'* addresses (that sounds more like *-moH*). You can only say *Heghpu' targh.*
When I first read [ HIvchu'mo' Heghta' ], the first (and I guess only) thought that went through my mind was "He (intentionally) died because he did a suicide attack." It made sense to me, so I didn't think any further on it. (When MO explained -chu' on fighting words, he did not give a definitive list of words. He simply said it works on some, but not all. To me it does work with HIv.) - DloraH
Am 01.03.2017 um 00:40 schrieb DloraH:
When I first read [ HIvchu'mo' Heghta' ], the first (and I guess only) thought that went through my mind was "He (intentionally) died because he did a suicide attack." It made sense to me, so I didn't think any further on it.
Thanks for confirming what I said. I didn't mean to argue that {Heghta'} is ungrammatical, it just made no sense to me that somebody died intentionally (except for commiting suicide). In the above example, it is defined that {Suvchu'} means "fight til death" but I think it's not implied that one /intentionally/ dies in such a battle. It's not clear from KGT. (I'm not any army person; I guess there are some soldiers here who will confirm that fighting til death might be a possible situation, but do you do that intentionally? Would the friends of a dead soldier say "He did it; he's dead now"?) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 1 March 2017 at 08:43, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 01.03.2017 um 00:40 schrieb DloraH:
When I first read [ HIvchu'mo' Heghta' ], the first (and I guess only) thought that went through my mind was "He (intentionally) died because he did a suicide attack." It made sense to me, so I didn't think any further on it.
KGT explicitly gives {HIvneS} as referring to a suicide attack and {Suvchu'} as meaning to fight to the death. I was trying to recall the construction from memory and came up with {HIvchu'}. (KGT does say that {-chu'} implies to the death with "some verbs of fighting", but only gives {Suv} and {Hay'} as examples.)
Thanks for confirming what I said. I didn't mean to argue that {Heghta'} is ungrammatical, it just made no sense to me that somebody died intentionally (except for commiting suicide).
In the above example, it is defined that {Suvchu'} means "fight til death" but I think it's not implied that one /intentionally/ dies in such a battle. It's not clear from KGT.
What is a "suicide mission", if not a plan of attack/defense where one's intention is to die? (See KGT p.49 where it talks about {-neS} and {-chu'} with verbs of fighting.) -- De'vID
Am 01.03.2017 um 10:25 schrieb De'vID:
What is a "suicide mission", if not a plan of attack/defense where one's intention is to die? (See KGT p.49 where it talks about {-neS} and {-chu'} with verbs of fighting.)
Alright, you have convinced me in this, that a suicide attack contains intentional dying. This does actually confirm what I felt, that {Heghta'} implies intentional dying and therefore can certainly only be used with a suicide. As SuStel wrote, {Heghta' targh} makes no sense. (Yeah, only when the Targ died intentionally, but we've had that already :-) ) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type7VerbSuffixes
I finally pulled out my copy of TKD and read the entire section about *-lI'*. Based on TKD alone, I think the argument in favor of intention is weak for two reasons: 1. The bulk of the description about *-lI'* is about how it denotes progress toward a goal or end point, rather than intention. 2. The bit about intention only appears in the last sentence, and that sentence only says that it's *possible* to consider *-lI'* a continuous counterpart of *-ta'*, not that it's *mandatory*. As for the canon examples discussed in this thread, I have two thoughts: 3. We may be suffering from selection bias. People like to tell stories about other people, and people often act with intent, so we're going to get a lopsided sample of *-lI' *being used for intention. That's not a conclusive argument one way or the other, but it's something to keep in mind. 4. Some of the examples seem ambiguous, and I think that lets us inject the idea of intention when we don't need to. I think the discussion between Lieven and Sustel about *chollI'* *(the torpedo) is getting closer *is telling. On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I had some more thoughts about this and what I said, and found the answer to my own question:
TKD gives the example {chollI'} "it (the torpedo) is getting closer"
"when it is known that the missile has been aimed at that target."
This does confirm that the thing does not itself have the intention to do what it does, a torpedoe does not "think" or "intend" to do what it does. The speaker does also not "intend" what is happening. He is neutral as describing what is going on: {chollI' peng} is to me the same as {pumlI' nagh}.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:14 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The restrictive side of the argument says that *someone* fired the torpedo and set its goal intentionally, and it is the firer's perspective that is generating the *-lI'.* Do you disagree with this argument?
To me, it feels like you're begging the question. If I fired the torpedo, I know my intention, but if I'm the target, do I have to guess whether it was intentionally fired? Maybe it was a misfire, like what the crew of the Enterprise thought might have happened to Kronos 1 in ST6. In the heat of battle, it might be a friendly fire incident. Intentional or not, I don't care; the torpedo has a known end point, and that end point is *me*. More importantly, if we're arguing about the the intentions hidden in the minds of people we can't see, we're probably injecting our own thoughts into the sentence rather than unpacking its meaning. On the other hand, if Klingons do exactly that sort of thinking whenever they construct a sentence, that's an important cultural difference that any competent field linguist would take the time to make clear. It would merit more discussion that a single sentence saying it's *possible *to *consider* *-lI'* a continuous version of *-ta'*. For these reasons, I favor the argument against intentional progress. I think the argument in favor puts too much stress on just one sentence of TKD, and the canon evidence is inconclusive at best. bI'reng
participants (6)
-
Brent Kesler -
De'vID -
DloraH -
Lieven -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel