Can I say maQeHchuqchoHmoH ?
Can I say {maQeHchuqchoHmoH} for "we anger each other" ? mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
I’m seeking clarity on etiquette for the list. I’ve newly resubscribed to the list. Is SuStel the current Beginners’ Grammarian? He seems to have been fulfilling that role admirably in the short time I’ve been back. If he is, I definitely want to give him first dibs on messages like this. If it’s a free-for-all and there is no BG, then I’m happy to contribute. It is not my intent to interfere or annoy, in any case. Free me of my ignorance. charghwI’ ‘utlh
On Jan 31, 2019, at 10:44 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I say {maQeHchuqchoHmoH} for "we anger each other" ?
mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
The last beginners grammarian was 'arHa'. Currently there's noone filling that role. Luckily SuStel usually answers; if SuStel isn't available, we rely on qeylIS. Or we use the Force. ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
The last BG was John Harness, but I believe he has stopped and did not pick someone to be his replacement. So, for now, it's a free-for-all. :) qurgh In his role as list administrator On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:09 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I’m seeking clarity on etiquette for the list.
I’ve newly resubscribed to the list. Is SuStel the current Beginners’ Grammarian? He seems to have been fulfilling that role admirably in the short time I’ve been back. If he is, I definitely want to give him first dibs on messages like this.
If it’s a free-for-all and there is no BG, then I’m happy to contribute. It is not my intent to interfere or annoy, in any case.
Free me of my ignorance.
charghwI’ ‘utlh
On Jan 31, 2019, at 10:44 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I say {maQeHchuqchoHmoH} for "we anger each other" ?
mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I like how SuStel has been answering things. Meanwhile, for a speedy answer: While the prefix may seem odd, I fully believe that what you suggest is a perfectly valid Klingon word. The weirdness is that the prefix suggests no direct object, but the {-moH} seems to require one. Remember that the “each other” reflexive suffix requires a no-object prefix. There’s an implied direct object, since the subject is also the direct object. The {-moH} suffix uses that implied direct object. So, “we” are the ones getting angry, and “we” are also the ones causing someone to be angry. It’s the same “we”. We cause each other to be angry. The {-choH} is probably unnecessary, unless your focus is on the fact that we are BEGINNING to cause each other to be angry. When you cause something, that cause usually implies change and continuation. If you aren’t causing change, then, well, how is your causation different from whatever was going on before you caused something? I guess you could cause the continuation of something. Normally, causation starts the action and continues the action, and when the cause stops causing, the action stops acting. Causation is like that. So, you can specifically note that you are {-choHmoH} causing the BEGINNING of an action (that wouldn’t begin without your causing it, but would continue, even if you stopped causing it), or that you are {-moHtaH} causing the CONTINUATION of an action that was already happening, but would have stopped if you hadn’t caused the continuation. Otherwise, {-moH} alone will do the job. charghwI’ ‘utlh
On Jan 31, 2019, at 10:44 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I say {maQeHchuqchoHmoH} for "we anger each other" ?
mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/31/2019 1:49 PM, Will Martin wrote:
The weirdness is that the prefix suggests no direct object, but the {-moH} seems to require one.
*-moH* does not require an object of any kind. Its description says simply that it means the subject is causing something. It doesn't say anything about objects. All it means is that the subject /causes/ the verb instead of doing the verb. And then we have examples like *maghoSchoHmoHneS'a'*/may we execute a course (to some place)?/ in TKD and *SeymoH QeH* /anger excites/ in TKW that back up the idea that an object is not necessary.
The {-choH} is probably unnecessary, unless your focus is on the fact that we are BEGINNING to cause each other to be angry.
This is my understanding of what mayqel is asking for. It's not an answer to why we always make each other angry; it's answering how we got into the state *(-choH)* of being angry. The *-choH* is needed for that. The confusion is entirely from the English sentence: does /we anger each other/ mean we get each other into an angry state, or does it mean we are angry whenever we are together? I would be more inclined to think he means the former, and his Klingon sentence backs up that belief, but either is possible. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I don't see any reason why not. Do you see some reason why you can't?
I was confused by the co-existence of {-chuq} together with {-moH}; I was under the impression that by the use of {-moH} we absolutely had to have an object. Anyway, I understand now, thanks. And yes, you were right. My intention was indeed to say "we get each other into an angry state". ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
When I originally read it, I came up with something closer to “we drive each other to anger” based on both -moH and -choH. Re: object with -moH In this case, isn’t “each other” the object? I think any -moH verb is going to have an object (explicit or not). «maHoHchuq» is functionally the same as something like «qaHoH ej qaHoHtaHvIS choHoH je». It’s just more efficient. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 31, 2019, at 14:17, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
I don't see any reason why not. Do you see some reason why you can't?
I was confused by the co-existence of {-chuq} together with {-moH}; I was under the impression that by the use of {-moH} we absolutely had to have an object.
Anyway, I understand now, thanks. And yes, you were right. My intention was indeed to say "we get each other into an angry state".
~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/31/2019 2:39 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
When I originally read it, I came up with something closer to “we drive each other to anger” based on both -moH and -choH.
Re: object with -moH
In this case, isn’t “each other” the object? I think any -moH verb is going to have an object (explicit or not).
That is not the case. Consider *maghoSchoHmoHneS'a'*/may we execute a course (to some place)?/ in TKD. It explicitly has no object. The issue here is the difference between the syntactic role of words and the semantic role of entities. Clearly, /something/ has its course changed. But that something has no syntactic role in the sentence and does not appear. So while it's true that wherever you see a *-moH,* /something/ must actually be doing, or potentially be doing, the verb, there is absolutely no requirement that that something be given any kind of syntactic presence in the sentence. As far as the syntax of the sentence is concerned, there is no object. You can have *-moH* and have no object. So when you say *maQeHchuqchoHmoH,* there is no grammatical object to the sentence, just as there is no object to the sentence *maleghchuq.* You can figure out who is doing the verb and who is having the verb done to them, but that's not in the syntax. Each other gets angry. We cause this to be.
«maHoHchuq» is functionally the same as something like «qaHoH ej qaHoHtaHvIS choHoH je». It’s just more efficient.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
You found a great canon example, and I do not doubt, especially given the new understanding of how {-moH} works, that you are generally right. I’m sure there are plenty of situations where we can use {-moH} on a verb with no direct object. {SuvwI’ jIH. jISuvmoH.} "I am a soldier. I cause fighting." I don’t have to be specific about who I cause to fight. Your specific canon example is somewhat of a special case, since the very definition of {ghoS} implies a direct object. It means, “approach, go away from, proceed, come, follow (a course)”. In the HolQeD interview, Okrand elaborated on the special nature of the verb {ghoS}. It doesn’t just mean to move around or to change one’s location. It implies a course. It ALWAYS implies a course. You can state the course as a direct object, if the course has a name, or you can use as a direct object any location associated with the course. It could be the starting point, or the target, or just some location along the way. Most commonly, it’s the destination. Or you can omit mention of the course, but, the course is always there. The verb {ghoS} is meaningless without a course. Otherwise, you should use {leng} or maybe {vIH}. It’s special in the same way that {vegh} is special. {leng} and {vIH} might or might not have a course, but {ghoS} and {vegh} imply moving along a specific path. That’s why you can say {juH vIghoS} and {juHDaq jIghoS}. They are both grammatically correct, and it would seem that they mean the same thing, but in the interview, he clarified that the first one means, "I’m moving along the course associated with home,” while the second one actually means, “I’m in/at my home, and I’m moving along a course with no explicit identification of what that course might be.” In this case, it might be a statement of the captain of a ship who considers the ship to be his home. He’s in his home. He’s making progress along a course. I think in Okrand's example, he explained that if you are in a boat on a river, the river would be the direct object of {ghoS}, while the boat would be the noun with a locative suffix. In English, we could say, “I’m driving home in my car.” Home is the destination of the road (course) I’m driving on/{ghoS}, the direct object of {ghoS}, and I’m doing it in my car{-Daq}, the noun with a locative suffix. I think he even said that if you said, {juHDaq vIghoS}, the meaning is that you are in/at home, and you are moving along a course. The home doesn’t have to have anything to do with the course, because the course is the direct object, and {juHDaq} is not a direct object, so there must be some other direct object associated with the course, explicit or implicit. So, if you {ghoSchoH}, you have to change the course. You had a course, and now, you don’t have that course any more. You have a new course. The following of a course has changed. But on a ship, the course doesn’t change itself. You have to cause the course to change. {ghoSchoHmoH}. In this case, it would not have been meaningful to {ghoSmoH}. The crewman is not asking permission to cause us to move along a course. We are already moving along a course. The crewman is asking if we can change our moving along a course. The change is the focus of the request for permission. That’s special enough that I’m not sure it serves well to prove that we need {-choH} in {maQeHchuqmoH}, unless we are emphasizing that it is the change of state that we are causing, and that we are not particularly interested in whether or not we are causing the condition itself. It’s the difference between, in English, saying, “We make each other angry,” and “We are changing each others state of anger.” Arguably, you might be saying that we WERE angry, but we are now CAUSING each other to CHANGE that state, so that we are now calm and happy, and no longer angry. We’re buying each other beers and telling jokes and laughing so hard we pee in our armor, and then we laugh even more because, hey, this is COLD. Angry? Us? Are you kidding? We’re best buddies. BFF! Klingons usually have a reason for using a suffix. It changes the meaning of the word it is applied to. If it just agrees with the meaning the word already seems to have had, then, it’s not really very Klingon to include it. It’s like putting a plural suffix on a noun with a number in front of it. You already know it’s plural. Why bother with a plural suffix? If we make each other angry, why bring up that we are changing our state of anger? The important part is that there’s anger, and there’s cause for anger. Change? Meh. Is that really important? Does it really clarify your meaning? Save {-choH} for a situation where it actually adds to the meaning of your statement. charghwI’ ‘utlh
On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:52 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/31/2019 2:39 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
When I originally read it, I came up with something closer to “we drive each other to anger” based on both -moH and -choH.
Re: object with -moH
In this case, isn’t “each other” the object? I think any -moH verb is going to have an object (explicit or not).
That is not the case. Consider maghoSchoHmoHneS'a' may we execute a course (to some place)? in TKD. It explicitly has no object.
The issue here is the difference between the syntactic role of words and the semantic role of entities. Clearly, something has its course changed. But that something has no syntactic role in the sentence and does not appear.
So while it's true that wherever you see a -moH, something must actually be doing, or potentially be doing, the verb, there is absolutely no requirement that that something be given any kind of syntactic presence in the sentence. As far as the syntax of the sentence is concerned, there is no object. You can have -moH and have no object.
So when you say maQeHchuqchoHmoH, there is no grammatical object to the sentence, just as there is no object to the sentence maleghchuq. You can figure out who is doing the verb and who is having the verb done to them, but that's not in the syntax. Each other gets angry. We cause this to be.
«maHoHchuq» is functionally the same as something like «qaHoH ej qaHoHtaHvIS choHoH je». It’s just more efficient.
-- 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 1/31/2019 5:24 PM, Will Martin wrote:
You found a great canon example, and I do not doubt, especially given the new understanding of how {-moH} works, that you are generally right. I’m sure there are plenty of situations where we can use {-moH} on a verb with no direct object. {SuvwI’ jIH. jISuvmoH.} "I am a soldier. I cause fighting." I don’t have to be specific about who I cause to fight.
Your specific canon example is somewhat of a special case, since the very definition of {ghoS} implies a direct object. It means, “approach, go away from, proceed, come, follow (a course)”.
It's not really a special case. *ghoS* doesn't imply a direct object any more than *Suv* implies a direct object, and you did not hesitate to write *jISuvmoH.* When you do not include an object on a verb that could take one, it's understood that the verb is acting on a vague, general object. That object is NOT syntactically part of the sentence. *jISuv*/I fight./ Whom or what I fight is left vague or general, but obviously I'm fighting someone or something. This is no different with *ghoS.* The given translation is made very explicit because /go/ is insufficient for an English speaker to understand the connection between *ghoS* and its object, but once you understand that connection, it's grammatically no different to *ghoS* something than it is to *Suv* something. *ghoS* is a perfectly normal word. It's just not equivalent to just one English word, so explaining it takes some time. But once you know what it is, it's simple and unremarkable. Please understand the difference between the existence of an object and the existence of an entity that would be an object if the entity were mentioned. /Object/ is a syntactic role of a word in a sentence. If a word does not appear in a sentence, it has no syntactic role in that sentence. If *jIghoS,* then the course I follow may exist, but it is not the object of the sentence.
In the HolQeD interview, Okrand elaborated on the special nature of the verb {ghoS}. It doesn’t just mean to move around or to change one’s location. It implies a course. It ALWAYS implies a course. You can state the course as a direct object, if the course has a name, or you can use as a direct object any location associated with the course. It could be the starting point, or the target, or just some location along the way. Most commonly, it’s the destination. Or you can omit mention of the course, but, the course is always there. The verb {ghoS} is meaningless without a course.
You are outrageously overstating what Okrand said in the interview. He gave no such absolutes. *ghoS* is the act of following a course, so naturally the idea of a course is inherent in the action, /but there is no syntactic requirement for a course to be listed./ Just as *Suv* implies some kind of fight occurring, even if you don't syntactically have to mention any fight. The word itself contains the meaning you're discussing. No, *ghoS* doesn't always have an implied object of a course; the course is inherent in the verb itself. *ghoS* means /follow a course/ all by itself.
Otherwise, you should use {leng} or maybe {vIH}. It’s special in the same way that {vegh} is special. {leng} and {vIH} might or might not have a course, but {ghoS} and {vegh} imply moving along a specific path.
That’s why you can say {juH vIghoS} and {juHDaq jIghoS}. They are both grammatically correct, and it would seem that they mean the same thing, but in the interview, he clarified that the first one means, "I’m moving along the course associated with home,” while the second one actually means, “I’m in/at my home, and I’m moving along a course with no explicit identification of what that course might be.”
Note that he declared that the locative-inherentness of these verbs makes a distinction between *juH vIghoS* and *juHDaq jIghoS,* but it's not actually deducible just from the grammar given in TKD. Prior to Okrand's declaration, we were perfectly able to analyze *juH vIghoS* and *juHDaq jIghoS* as meaning exactly the same thing. It took an Okrandian decree to change this.
I think he even said that if you said, {juHDaq vIghoS}, the meaning is that you are in/at home, and you are moving along a course.
*juHDaq vIghoS* can mean /I follow it (a course) at home, /or it can mean /I go home./ For the latter, the *-Daq* on *juH* would be considered redundant and unnecessary, but not out-and-out wrong. There is no actual prohibition on putting type 5 suffixes on objects — the example in TKD 3.5.5 actually does this — and this is a case where you can do so, even if doing so makes Klingons look at you funny.
Klingons usually have a reason for using a suffix.
You're about to indulge in what I think of as an "a Klingon would never" argument. I don't usually find them productive for understanding the grammar. They're useful for asking how a Klingon would respond to something, but not in understanding the rules. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I often feel that you prejudice posts from me with a visceral emotion that shades whatever I say before you’ve read it. We have a history, so I understand that. I then have to take a breath and make a sincere effort to not respond in kind. 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. The suffix {-moH} does not require a syntactic direct object. I get that. I have no interest in suggesting otherwise. 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. 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}. Basically verbs like {ghoS}, {bav}, and {vegh} involve a subject moving along a specific path identified by the direct object. 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. 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. If syntax was all that was important, then it probably would be a code and not a language. 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. The function of {-choH} in your selected canon example is that the implied direct object (syntactically missing, but semantically implied) is, in fact, the thing that is changed. Before the change and after the change, the ship is moving. The act of moving has not changed. The unmentioned course is the thing that changes when you {ghoSchoH}. 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. If, instead, you mean to suggest that one is causing anger, then {-choH} is actually misleading. It’s vague and distracting from your point. It requires you to know what the state of anger was, and what it has become by the change. The far simpler idea of causing anger is almost certainly closer to the meaning intended. 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. The two functions of {-choH} are: 1. To emphasize a change of state or action, as opposed to the simple occurrence of the state or action. 2. To emphasize the moment that the state or action changed. To highlight the starting moment as part of a time stamp. You are right in general about syntax. Meanwhile, the syntax exists to serve the semantic function of expressing an idea. If you have perfect syntax with poor semantic function, then you aren’t communicating very well. It’s like perfectly enunciating the wrong words. There’s clarity, and then, there’s Clarity. 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. Ironically, I’m apparently a bad communicator. Sincere apologies for that. charghwI’ ‘utlh
On Jan 31, 2019, at 6:40 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/31/2019 5:24 PM, Will Martin wrote:
You found a great canon example, and I do not doubt, especially given the new understanding of how {-moH} works, that you are generally right. I’m sure there are plenty of situations where we can use {-moH} on a verb with no direct object. {SuvwI’ jIH. jISuvmoH.} "I am a soldier. I cause fighting." I don’t have to be specific about who I cause to fight.
Your specific canon example is somewhat of a special case, since the very definition of {ghoS} implies a direct object. It means, “approach, go away from, proceed, come, follow (a course)”.
It's not really a special case. ghoS doesn't imply a direct object any more than Suv implies a direct object, and you did not hesitate to write jISuvmoH.
When you do not include an object on a verb that could take one, it's understood that the verb is acting on a vague, general object. That object is NOT syntactically part of the sentence. jISuv I fight. Whom or what I fight is left vague or general, but obviously I'm fighting someone or something.
This is no different with ghoS. The given translation is made very explicit because go is insufficient for an English speaker to understand the connection between ghoS and its object, but once you understand that connection, it's grammatically no different to ghoS something than it is to Suv something. ghoS is a perfectly normal word. It's just not equivalent to just one English word, so explaining it takes some time. But once you know what it is, it's simple and unremarkable.
Please understand the difference between the existence of an object and the existence of an entity that would be an object if the entity were mentioned. Object is a syntactic role of a word in a sentence. If a word does not appear in a sentence, it has no syntactic role in that sentence. If jIghoS, then the course I follow may exist, but it is not the object of the sentence.
In the HolQeD interview, Okrand elaborated on the special nature of the verb {ghoS}. It doesn’t just mean to move around or to change one’s location. It implies a course. It ALWAYS implies a course. You can state the course as a direct object, if the course has a name, or you can use as a direct object any location associated with the course. It could be the starting point, or the target, or just some location along the way. Most commonly, it’s the destination. Or you can omit mention of the course, but, the course is always there. The verb {ghoS} is meaningless without a course.
You are outrageously overstating what Okrand said in the interview. He gave no such absolutes. ghoS is the act of following a course, so naturally the idea of a course is inherent in the action, but there is no syntactic requirement for a course to be listed. Just as Suv implies some kind of fight occurring, even if you don't syntactically have to mention any fight. The word itself contains the meaning you're discussing. No, ghoS doesn't always have an implied object of a course; the course is inherent in the verb itself. ghoS means follow a course all by itself.
Otherwise, you should use {leng} or maybe {vIH}. It’s special in the same way that {vegh} is special. {leng} and {vIH} might or might not have a course, but {ghoS} and {vegh} imply moving along a specific path.
That’s why you can say {juH vIghoS} and {juHDaq jIghoS}. They are both grammatically correct, and it would seem that they mean the same thing, but in the interview, he clarified that the first one means, "I’m moving along the course associated with home,” while the second one actually means, “I’m in/at my home, and I’m moving along a course with no explicit identification of what that course might be.”
Note that he declared that the locative-inherentness of these verbs makes a distinction between juH vIghoS and juHDaq jIghoS, but it's not actually deducible just from the grammar given in TKD. Prior to Okrand's declaration, we were perfectly able to analyze juH vIghoS and juHDaq jIghoS as meaning exactly the same thing. It took an Okrandian decree to change this.
I think he even said that if you said, {juHDaq vIghoS}, the meaning is that you are in/at home, and you are moving along a course.
juHDaq vIghoS can mean I follow it (a course) at home, or it can mean I go home. For the latter, the -Daq on juH would be considered redundant and unnecessary, but not out-and-out wrong. There is no actual prohibition on putting type 5 suffixes on objects — the example in TKD 3.5.5 actually does this — and this is a case where you can do so, even if doing so makes Klingons look at you funny.
Klingons usually have a reason for using a suffix.
You're about to indulge in what I think of as an "a Klingon would never" argument. I don't usually find them productive for understanding the grammar. They're useful for asking how a Klingon would respond to something, but not in understanding the rules.
-- 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 2/1/2019 9:10 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I often feel that you prejudice posts from me with a visceral emotion that shades whatever I say before you’ve read it.
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.
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.
I didn't say you mistakenly said it. I said you said it, and that it showed you agreed with me that *-moH* verbs don't require objects. I recognized your use of objectless *-moH* as completely intentional and poignant.
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.
He did not give us a new understanding of what it meant; he clarified its use. Its translations in TKD include /approach, proceed, proceed on a course, proceed toward, go, go onward, follow a course, go away from, /and /come./ 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 /not/ 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.
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}.
I see no such difference mentioned in the interview. Please quote where he makes this distinction. You may find the full article here: http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt
Basically verbs like {ghoS}, {bav}, and {vegh} involve a subject moving along a specific path identified by the direct object.
No. The verb *ghoS* 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. *yuQ wIbav, yuQ* is locative because it's the place you orbit. *lojmIt vIvegh, lojmIt* is locative because it's the place you move through. That's all it is: these are verbs that inherently include a locative concept for its object. The object of *bav* is the thing at the center of your orbit. The objects of *jaH* and *leng* are your destination. The object of *vegh* is the portal or tunnel you pass through. And the object of *ghoS* is the path you're on.
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.
"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 *ghoS* means following a course. If "pathing" was a verb in English, it would translate *ghoS* nicely, and no object would be expected at all.
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.
"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.
If syntax was all that was important, then it probably would be a code and not a language.
No, it would not. Syntax is important. Semantics is important. Each has its job.
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.
Or, at least, what /you/ understood up to that time, as you were the one bringing the questions and followups. /You/ kept asking about *ghoS,* so he told you more about *ghoS.* We certainly benefited from the expanded explanations of both *ghoS* and locative-inherent verbs. But Okrand didn't deliver radically new revelations in that interview, just useful clarifications.
The function of {-choH} in your selected canon example is that the implied direct object (syntactically missing, but semantically implied)
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.
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.
This is incorrect. *QeHchoH* means only /become angry,/ not /cease to be angry./ The latter would have to be *QeHHa'choH.*
If, instead, you mean to suggest that one is causing anger, then {-choH} is actually misleading.
He used *-moH* to suggest, indeed outright state, that one is causing anger. He used *-choH* to suggest, indeed outright state, that a state of anger was coming into existence where none existed before.
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.
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 *-choH.* Questions of agency are irrelevant. If *jIQuchchoH*/I become happy, /it's true whether *jIQuch'eghchoHmoH* /I make myself happy /or *muQuchmoH HoD*/the captain makes me happy./ If I say *jIQuch'eghmoH,* 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. *jIQuch'eghmoH* is not talking about a transition.
The two functions of {-choH} are:
1. To emphasize a change of state or action, as opposed to the simple occurrence of the state or action. 2. To emphasize the moment that the state or action changed. To highlight the starting moment as part of a time stamp.
It's not emphasis, it's existence. If you talk about a verb that changes state in the moment you describe it, you need *-choH.* It's not optional. If you leave it off, you haven't described any kind of change.
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.
This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Just to be clear, I agree with you. Erase all meaning from the words and dissect the grammar, and there is no direct object. charghwI’ ‘utlh
On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:52 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/31/2019 2:39 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
When I originally read it, I came up with something closer to “we drive each other to anger” based on both -moH and -choH.
Re: object with -moH
In this case, isn’t “each other” the object? I think any -moH verb is going to have an object (explicit or not).
That is not the case. Consider maghoSchoHmoHneS'a' may we execute a course (to some place)? in TKD. It explicitly has no object.
The issue here is the difference between the syntactic role of words and the semantic role of entities. Clearly, something has its course changed. But that something has no syntactic role in the sentence and does not appear.
So while it's true that wherever you see a -moH, something must actually be doing, or potentially be doing, the verb, there is absolutely no requirement that that something be given any kind of syntactic presence in the sentence. As far as the syntax of the sentence is concerned, there is no object. You can have -moH and have no object.
So when you say maQeHchuqchoHmoH, there is no grammatical object to the sentence, just as there is no object to the sentence maleghchuq. You can figure out who is doing the verb and who is having the verb done to them, but that's not in the syntax. Each other gets angry. We cause this to be.
«maHoHchuq» is functionally the same as something like «qaHoH ej qaHoHtaHvIS choHoH je». It’s just more efficient.
-- 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' 'utlh:
Is THAT what you really want to convey with the statement, or are you trying to convey the very different idea that we cause each other to be angry?
The reason the {maQeHchuqchoHmoH} came to my mind, thus leading to this thread, was the following.. As soon as you returned, I remembered three years ago, when I had just joined this list and being the "classic" beginner I used to piss people off; and most of all you. Then, you would "return the favor", pissing me off too.. So, as soon as you returned, thinking of these events I thought of {maQeHchuqchoHmoH}, wanting to express the "we angered each other". Anyways.. I miss those days.. Everything was so much more lively then.. Now, the disruptors have gone cold.. ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
Let me paint a scenario for you. You and I are at a fancy Ferengi bar. You’ve had a rough day. Your disrupter fizzled in the middle of battle, right as you were aiming for the leader of your enemy this morning. He got away. You came home and found your wife having an affair with a Romulan. Your kids don’t respect you. You came here to sulk and get drunk. You’ve succeeded in getting drunk enough to be somewhat unstable while walking. You trip and spill romulan ale all over your new Sarq skin boots with fur lining. You hadn’t gotten around to oiling them yet, so they are ruined. They cost you a month’s pay. You are displeased. You look up and see that I am laughing at you. You’re the funniest thing I've seen in the past year. You are angry and I am not. You walk up to me and punch me in the face. I’m pretty tough, so I don’t mind it much, and I understand. That’s a reasonable response. But I also have been drinking a bit, so your punch made me stagger backwards three steps. Unfortunately, I was two steps away from the huge, decorative, spiral staircase leading down to the dance floor. There is no landing; just three stories of spiraling steps, 20 feet wide. I’m rolling down the stairway. My disruptor goes one way. My favorite ruby encrusted dagger flings off another way. My betleH flings itself out, impaling the wall 20’ off the floor. There’s no way I’ll get that back. Kathump, kathump, kathump, kathump, sliiiiiiiiiiide. I knock several dancers down as I sweep across the slick floor, through the crowd. The band stops. The hush falls across the crowd. The only sound in the room is you, laughing. Now, I am angry and you are not. maQeHchuqchoHmoH. We have each changed the state of anger of the other. It doesn’t matter what the state of anger is. The important part of this statement is the change that we have caused. Is THAT what you really want to convey with the statement, or are you trying to convey the very different idea that we cause each other to be angry? It’s not the same thing. charghwI’ ‘utlh
On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:17 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
I don't see any reason why not. Do you see some reason why you can't?
I was confused by the co-existence of {-chuq} together with {-moH}; I was under the impression that by the use of {-moH} we absolutely had to have an object.
Anyway, I understand now, thanks. And yes, you were right. My intention was indeed to say "we get each other into an angry state".
~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/1/2019 8:19 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Now, I am angry and you are not.
maQeHchuqchoHmoH.
We have each changed the state of anger of the other.
It doesn’t matter what the state of anger is. The important part of this statement is the change that we have caused.
Is THAT what you really want to convey with the statement, or are you trying to convey the very different idea that we cause each other to be angry?
Untrue. *-choH* means a state, as described by the verb, begins. It doesn't allow you to toggle back and forth between states. *QeHchoH* means only /become angry,/ not /cease to be angry./ To go the other way, you need *QeHHa'choH.* *maQeHchuqchoHmoH* /we get each other into an angry state /*maQeHchuqmoH*/we are the cause of each other's anger/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Well said. I can’t find anything here worth arguing about. All points conceded. charghwI’ ‘utlh Sent from my iPad
On Feb 1, 2019, at 3:59 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/1/2019 8:19 AM, Will Martin wrote: Now, I am angry and you are not.
maQeHchuqchoHmoH.
We have each changed the state of anger of the other.
It doesn’t matter what the state of anger is. The important part of this statement is the change that we have caused.
Is THAT what you really want to convey with the statement, or are you trying to convey the very different idea that we cause each other to be angry? Untrue.
-choH means a state, as described by the verb, begins. It doesn't allow you to toggle back and forth between states. QeHchoH means only become angry, not cease to be angry. To go the other way, you need QeHHa'choH.
maQeHchuqchoHmoH we get each other into an angry state maQeHchuqmoH we are the cause of each other's anger
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Will Martin:
It’s like putting a plural suffix on a noun with a number in front of it. You already know it’s plural. Why bother with a plural suffix?
Because there's a shitload of Ca'NoN examples, where plural suffixes on nouns are included, although context as well as verb prefixes make clear that the noun is plural. I never understood this "allergic reaction" people tend to have on using plural suffixes. I prefer to see something which could be considered redundant but would make things immediately clear, than omittting everything and thinking that the reader is psychic so he will eventually get it. And now I can almost *feel* disruptors powering up.. ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
On 1/31/2019 10:44 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Can I say {maQeHchuqchoHmoH} for "we anger each other" ?
I don't see any reason why not. Do you see some reason why you can't? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunenoS -
qurgh lungqIj -
SuStel -
Will Martin