AFAIK there are no examples of the verb {qID} in canon, either transitive or intransitive. I agree with SuStel that it’s likely an error in boQwI’, perhaps based on the gloss “make a joke, tell a joke” in KGT. -- Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel On 5/7/2019 3:00 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote: In boQwI’, {qID} is marked as a transitive verb. I assumed that the object of the qID would logically be the subject of the joke; but after a discussion on the KLI Discord, we could not find any sourcing for transitive qID, and the gloss does not directly imply an object. Can anyone confirm that qID takes an object and what the object might be? I believe there is no evidence supporting the idea that qID takes an object. I believe this to be an error in boQwI'.

On May 7, 2019, at 16:38, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

FWIW, the boQwI' entry for {qID} Tags it as v:t and not v:t_c. The latter would indicate that the classification as transitive has been confirmed by canon.

toH… that’s what “v:t_c” means! I thought it was a syntactic thing that I just didn’t understand… —jevreH

On 5/7/2019 4:38 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:

On May 7, 2019, at 15:17, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu <mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu>> wrote:

...

AFAIK there are no examples of the verb {qID} in canon, either transitive or intransitive.  I agree with SuStel that it’s likely an error in boQwI’, perhaps based on the gloss “make a joke,  tell a joke” in KGT.

FWIW, the boQwI' entry for {qID} Tags it as v:t and not v:t_c. The latter would indicate that the classification as transitive has been confirmed by canon.

So boQwI' has tags that mean "transitive because I say so" and "transitive in canon"? wejpuH. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 5/7/2019 5:21 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 5:11 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

So boQwI' has tags that mean "transitive because I say so" and "transitive in canon"? wejpuH.

The tag is written out as "This verb can probably take a direct object." I assume that in cases where canon doesn't confirm one way or another, De'vID relies on the transitivity of the English gloss.

None of /joke, make a joke,/ or /tell a joke/ seem transitive to me. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 09:13, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

My opinion is the opposite, that it does *not* have an object. First, the transitive version would have brackets in its definition, as in "tell (a joke)".

This is contradicted by the examples used during the discussion at qepHom'a' 2011. One was {Monopoly vIQuj}, where {Quj} is defined as "play a game". Another was {naQjej yIghuS}, where {ghuS} is defined as "lower (spear) to horizontal to attack". In this case, the object is indeed in brackets in the definition, but the verb {ghuS} was acknowledged as matching the pattern "[verb] a [noun]", *despite* having brackets and no article. When Okrand described the pattern (verbally) as "verb a noun", I don't think he's literally saying the definition has to be a verb, followed by the article, followed by a noun. He was giving the general idea of a pattern. Another similar example, {tlhevjaQ wob}, is in KGT (where {wob} is defined as "hurl a spear by means of a {chetvI'}"). OTOH {baH} is "fire (torpedo, rocket, missile)" and can take {cha} as its object, so whether or not there are brackets when a verb can take an object isn't consistent, AFAICT. OTOH, we subsequently learned that the object of {DIj} "use a pigment stick, paint with a pigment stick" is *not* the pigment stick, but the thing which is touched by the pigment stick! This is why Okrand always says "generally", "usually", "normally", or some such, whenever he gives a guideline: so he can overrule it later. Prior to the clarification about {DIj}, I would've thought the object of {DIj} was the pigment stick, based on what he said previously about "verb a noun" verbs. My other point is - why was the verb qID not used in

Power Klingon? There's an entire chapter about jokes, and the phrase only says {meb, lut tlhaQ DaSov'a'?} This would have been a perfect place to use {qID}.

The reason may be as simple as that Power Klingon came out in 1993, and Okrand didn't make up {qID} (uh, I mean, Maltz didn't tell him about it) until shortly before the publication of KGT in 1997. (But also, even if {qID} had existed as both a noun and a verb back then, the script to Power Klingon was written in English and given to Okrand to translate into Klingon. The most obvious translation of "Guest, do you know any funny stories?" still doesn't involve either the noun or the verb {qID}. And he might've also not wanted to say such an obvious pun out loud.) -- De'vID

Okrand has consistently avoided using the words “transitive” or “intransitive”. He didn’t mark this sort of thing in TKD. It’s long been a frustration for me because I honestly believe that you can’t understand a verb well until you know its relationship with acceptable direct objects. The relationship between the verb and its direct object is part of the meaning of the verb, and most of the time, this is part of the definition of verbs that we don’t get from Okrand. We just have to watch for it in canon, and even then, it’s not always consistent. SuStel has long made this point from a different angle, and I’ve agued in favor of some kind of clarified, systematic approach, while he’s tended to defend a looser acceptance of a wider range of possibilities in terms of objects of verbs. Over time, I’ve worn down and just accept that we just do the best we can. Maybe {qID} can use {‘e’} as its direct object. If you don’t like that, then you can treat it like one of the verbs that almost makes it to the list of speech words, but doesn’t quite. {qID Qanqor. jatlh <peng baHmeH qarDaSngan ‘ar poQlu’?>} I’m guessing that when Okrand includes an explicit noun in the gloss, it probably is similar to English verbs that have an implied direct object that can be stated explicitly, but doesn’t really need to. A moon orbits. What does it orbit. Well, it orbits a planet. That’s what makes it a moon. A moon doesn’t orbit a star. It would be a planet, if it did that. My spider sense tells me that someone is going to object to something I’ve said here. Don’t think. Just click “Send”. Someone will be amused by the exchange. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On May 8, 2019, at 5:19 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 08.05.2019 um 10:30 schrieb De'vID:

...

This is contradicted [...] Another similar example, {tlhevjaQ wob}, is in KGT (where {wob} is defined as "hurl a spear by means of a {chetvI'}"). OTOH {baH} is "fire (torpedo, rocket, missile)"

It seems like Okrand is not really consistent with this, so my argument does not have much weight indeed.

...

This is why Okrand always says "generally", "usually", "normally",

Yes, that's what I also said in a different thread.

...

The reason may be as simple as that Power Klingon came out in 1993, and Okrand didn't make up {qID} [...] KGT in 1997.

Ah,. sorry, I messed that up. Thought it was older.

-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Jokes _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On May 8, 2019, at 10:51 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 5/8/2019 10:21 AM, Will Martin wrote:

...

Okrand has consistently avoided using the words “transitive” or “intransitive”. He didn’t mark this sort of thing in TKD. It's usually not so simple. English verbs, for instance, usually have both transitive and intransitive senses. What we don't get in The Klingon Dictionary are senses.

I have not had any familiarity with the grammatical term “senses”, but it sounds like you know of what you speak.

...

It’s long been a frustration for me because I honestly believe that you can’t understand a verb well until you know its relationship with acceptable direct objects. The relationship between the verb and its direct object is part of the meaning of the verb, and most of the time, this is part of the definition of verbs that we don’t get from Okrand. We just have to watch for it in canon, and even then, it’s not always consistent. More than that: we have to try to understand all the arguments of a verb. Sometimes it's not clear what the subject of a verb should be, let alone any objects.

I agree that all arguments to a verb help achieve a deeper understanding of the verb.

...

SuStel has long made this point from a different angle, and I’ve agued in favor of some kind of clarified, systematic approach, while he’s tended to defend a looser acceptance of a wider range of possibilities in terms of objects of verbs. Over time, I’ve worn down and just accept that we just do the best we can. I find it amusing that most people think I'm the uber-strict, slippery-slope-ignoring grammar police, while you think I'm a hippy-dippy grammar defiler.

I’d like to clarify that I don’t think you are a hippy-dippy grammar defiler. I think of our past mostly as being necessary opposites, such that a balance between our extremes has helped the language evolve, yet remain sufficiently stable to be useful to the whole community. I’ve consistently (well, MOSTLY consistently) erred toward conservative, limited extension beyond what we are explicitly given, and you’ve sought often well-considered openness to possibilities beyond my small-minded restrictions. In early days, there were so many self-declared usurpers pushing to make up new vocabulary without waiting for Okrand to give us words, or to make wild reinterpretations of the grammar that I felt compelled to draw my blade and fight the good fight to defend Okrand as the source of the language… and it just continued on and on with so many assaults, often poorly planned or justified, that I felt squeezed into a mold — to satisfy that call to balance. When I stopped participating for an extended period, it’s only natural that you’d be drawn to fill in the void and step forward to guard stability of interpretation, holding us closer to canon. So, now we agree more often than we used to because many of your arguments have convinced me against my former positions, and because you’ve begun to see the dangers of chaos in the absence of anyone speaking out for order. It’s a theory, anyway. So many of the early voices have vanished. We don’t hear from Qanqor anymore. We don’t hear from Seqram anymore. We rarely hear from ghunchu’wI’. I miss Doqtargh. So, the new balance is struck and it evolves. You still call me out for my knee-jerk, excessive attempts to limit what people can do with the language, and the recent times you’ve done that, I’ve agreed with you. I’m trying to catch up with changes in my absence and become more of a simple participant and less of a self-declared authority figure (despite occasional seizures apparently caused by some mysterious form of epilepsy that involves touch typing).

...

Maybe {qID} can use {‘e’} as its direct object. If you don’t like that, then you can treat it like one of the verbs that almost makes it to the list of speech words, but doesn’t quite. {qID Qanqor. jatlh <peng baHmeH qarDaSngan ‘ar poQlu’?>} I hadn't considered 'e' or net as the object of qID, but once De'vID suggested it, it made sense.

Another verb that I think really only works with an 'e' or net object is Hech intend, mean to.

...

I’m guessing that when Okrand includes an explicit noun in the gloss, it probably is similar to English verbs that have an implied direct object that can be stated explicitly, but doesn’t really need to. A moon orbits. What does it orbit. Well, it orbits a planet. That’s what makes it a moon. A moon doesn’t orbit a star. It would be a planet, if it did that. Whenever Okrand is writing for a word-list, as opposed to conversationally explaining a word, he includes an explicit noun on a verb where the English translation has more than once sense, and he's disambiguating which sense he means.

baH fire (torpedo, rocket, missile) — as opposed to fire someone from their job or fire a kiln. bIv break (rules) — as opposed to breaking a piece of glass. cha' show, display (picture) — as opposed to showing or displaying a statue in a gallery. chIp cut, trim (hair) — as opposed to cutting other things like meat or wood. chu' engage, activate (a device) — not sure about this one, maybe it's to distinguish engage from something like engaging in conversation. Activate has other senses, but they're too esoteric to have needed disambiguation. Dan occupy (military term) — as opposed to being inside something. No one would misunderstand "military term" as being the object of Dan. ghoS one of the translations is follow (a course) — as opposed to following someone into the Great Barrier. He' smell, emit odor — as opposed to emitting sounds or exhaust. This one doesn't even bother with parentheses, because the main sense of the word comes from odor, not emit.

I think it’s important to note when there are or are not parentheses around the object in the gloss. {He’} doesn’t have parentheses, and I suggest it takes no direct object. Those with parentheses are simply examples of the sort of direct object that the verb can take. As such {qID}’s gloss is “joke, make a joke, tell a joke”. No parentheses. That suggests that the direct object in the gloss is implicit and not merely exemplary. It suggests that {qID} takes no object. I’m not sure that Okrand is ALWAYS consistent about this, but I don’t think it’s accidental. It seems to be an element of his proprietary notation.

And so on.

-- 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

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Wed, May 8, 2019, 17:38 SuStel, <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

I don't think you can say that a verb translated with an explicit object without parentheses indicates that object must be already built into the verb, leading to no explicit object allowed. It just means Okrand hasn't been particularly consistent in how he punctuates his translations.

These take a spear (or spear-like projectile) as the object: {chuH} "throw (a spear) at, hurl (a spear) at" {ghuS} "lower (spear) to horizontal to attack" {wob} "hurl a spear by means of a {chetvI'}" These take the thing played as the object: {chu'} "play (a musical instrument)" {rIl} "play (a wind instrument)" {Quj} "play a game" These take the thing blown into as the object: {jo'} "blow into a container of some kind" {SuS} "blow (into wind instrument) to produce sound" The brackets don't seem to have anything to do with whether the verb takes an object or not. -- De'vID