This is a poll to check your opinion or your knowledge: I'm working on a dictionary as part of the Klingon Language Wiki. Now I wondered: How much do people know the word "in/transitive"? Does it maybe sound too technical? Would it be more useable to say a) - "this is a transitive verb" or b) - "this verb can take an object" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On 2/22/2020 11:48 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
This is a poll to check your opinion or your knowledge:
I'm working on a dictionary as part of the Klingon Language Wiki. Now I wondered: How much do people know the word "in/transitive"? Does it maybe sound too technical?
Would it be more useable to say a) - "this is a transitive verb" or b) - "this verb can take an object"
Web-based dictionaries will use either version. Merriam Webster is happy to tell you a verb is transitive or intransitive, while Dictionary.com says with object or no object. My physical Oxford American Dictionary says trans. or intrans. When writing a dictionary, remember that it's not just whether a word is transitive or intransitive, it's whether a particular sense of a word is transitive or intransitive. A translating dictionary will tell you that *Suv* means /fight,/ but it may not tell you that it can be used transitively, where the object is the entity being fought against, or intransitively, where the subject is engaging in a general activity of fighting, possibly against itself. It's not enough just to say "*Suv *is transitive." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.02.2020 um 18:02 schrieb SuStel:
Web-based dictionaries will use either version.
I know, that's why I wondered which one would be preferred.
When writing a dictionary,[...]It's not enough just to say "*Suv *is transitive."
That's what I'm working on. Day by day, step by step. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/Suv
On 2/22/2020 12:18 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 22.02.2020 um 18:02 schrieb SuStel:
Web-based dictionaries will use either version.
I know, that's why I wondered which one would be preferred.
Use transitive/intransitive, but link those words with hyperlinks to an explanation of transitivity (M-W does this). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Feb 22, 2020, at 11:03, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: When writing a dictionary, remember that it's not just whether a word is transitive or intransitive, it's whether a particular sense of a word is transitive or intransitive. A translating dictionary will tell you that Suv means fight, but it may not tell you that it can be used transitively, where the object is the entity being fought against, or intransitively, where the subject is engaging in a general activity of fighting, possibly against itself. It's not enough just to say "Suv is transitive."
We also don’t actually know with certainty whether many verbs are transitive or intransitive. We just use them transitively or intransitively based on how we interpret their glosses. Just recently somebody on the Discord server was asking how, if {voQ} is intransitive, one could use it in a sentence like “A choked B”. The answer, of course, would be to use {-moH}, but that answer is completely dependent on the assumption that {voQ} is intransitive in the first place. I think it is a bit of a stretch, in the absence of canonical examples of that verb being used. And even if we have a canonical example of it being used either transitively or intransitively, that doesn’t rule out it behaving like {meQ}, unless we have very explicit information that it’s *only* used some ways and not others, which is a level of information we really don’t have for most verbs.
Am 22.02.2020 um 19:12 schrieb Hugh Son puqloD:
We also don’t actually know with certainty whether many verbs are transitive or intransitive. We just use them transitively or intransitively based on how we interpret their glosses.
I am aware of that. For this reason, I follow what boQwI' does, noting whether the transitivity is a guess or if it is proven by canon. We do have many canon examples, and if we don't, the "guess" is most of the times quite correct. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Transitivity
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 09:07, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 22.02.2020 um 19:12 schrieb Hugh Son puqloD:
We also don’t actually know with certainty whether many verbs are transitive or intransitive. We just use them transitively or intransitively based on how we interpret their glosses.
I am aware of that. For this reason, I follow what boQwI' does, noting whether the transitivity is a guess or if it is proven by canon.
People read more significance into the transitivity field in {boQwI'} than they should. The reason it's there is because it simplifies (or at least was intended to simplify) the logic for the grammar analysis. It was originally even hidden from view. -- De'vID
Transitivity is a little messy in Klingon. We have a few examples, like {vum} which we know is “intransitive” in the sense that the subject is the thing moving and if an agent causes something else to move, then {vemmoH [agent]}. We didn’t get that from canon examples. We got it from a conversation with Okrand about that specific verb. He doesn’t talk about most verbs like that, so we have to guess. Even if we have an example or two of a verb being used transitively or intransitively, we can’t know for sure if the non-canon interpretation of canon is wrong if we haven’t had that explained to us because some verbs get used both ways. We also know why this is true: Okrand doesn’t want to mark a verb one way and later forget and use it the other way, so he doesn’t want to tell us which way is right so we won’t come back to him and tell him later that he’s using it wrong. And even if we know a verb is transitive, what specific kinds of things can be the direct object of any specific verb, so that these things don’t need a Type 5 suffix to link them to the verb? It can be somewhat intuitive, but it also can be quite arbitrary. {ja’} and {jatlh} has changed over time, for example. Originally, the direct object of {ja’} was the person spoken to, and the direct object of {jatlh} was the language or noun-representing-words-being-said (like a poem or a speech). It was a neat difference between the two verbs. Then it got smeared by canon example, and now, it’s not really obvious that either verb is wrong for either kind of object. … which brings us back to why Okrand doesn’t want to get specific about this stuff. So, we have to guess. It’s probably the most obviously vague area of Klingon grammar. To be fair, in any language, there are certain nouns that work great as direct objects of certain verbs and other nouns that, by cultural convention, should not be used. If you speak the language, you know which nouns work and which ones don’t. If you don’t speak the language as a native, you can easily err out of honest ignorance, as we are doomed to do in Klingon. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 22, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylIS.net> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2020, at 11:03, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
When writing a dictionary, remember that it's not just whether a word is transitive or intransitive, it's whether a particular sense of a word is transitive or intransitive. A translating dictionary will tell you that Suv means fight, but it may not tell you that it can be used transitively, where the object is the entity being fought against, or intransitively, where the subject is engaging in a general activity of fighting, possibly against itself. It's not enough just to say "Suv is transitive."
We also don’t actually know with certainty whether many verbs are transitive or intransitive. We just use them transitively or intransitively based on how we interpret their glosses. Just recently somebody on the Discord server was asking how, if {voQ} is intransitive, one could use it in a sentence like “A choked B”. The answer, of course, would be to use {-moH}, but that answer is completely dependent on the assumption that {voQ} is intransitive in the first place. I think it is a bit of a stretch, in the absence of canonical examples of that verb being used. And even if we have a canonical example of it being used either transitively or intransitively, that doesn’t rule out it behaving like {meQ}, unless we have very explicit information that it’s *only* used some ways and not others, which is a level of information we really don’t have for most verbs. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I obviously meant {vIH} instead of {vum}. Old brain. Still works, but the cogs skip a tooth now and then... charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 24, 2020, at 4:55 PM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Transitivity is a little messy in Klingon.
We have a few examples, like {vum} which we know is “intransitive” in the sense that the subject is the thing moving and if an agent causes something else to move, then {vemmoH [agent]}. We didn’t get that from canon examples. We got it from a conversation with Okrand about that specific verb. He doesn’t talk about most verbs like that, so we have to guess.
Even if we have an example or two of a verb being used transitively or intransitively, we can’t know for sure if the non-canon interpretation of canon is wrong if we haven’t had that explained to us because some verbs get used both ways. We also know why this is true:
Okrand doesn’t want to mark a verb one way and later forget and use it the other way, so he doesn’t want to tell us which way is right so we won’t come back to him and tell him later that he’s using it wrong.
And even if we know a verb is transitive, what specific kinds of things can be the direct object of any specific verb, so that these things don’t need a Type 5 suffix to link them to the verb? It can be somewhat intuitive, but it also can be quite arbitrary.
{ja’} and {jatlh} has changed over time, for example. Originally, the direct object of {ja’} was the person spoken to, and the direct object of {jatlh} was the language or noun-representing-words-being-said (like a poem or a speech). It was a neat difference between the two verbs. Then it got smeared by canon example, and now, it’s not really obvious that either verb is wrong for either kind of object.
… which brings us back to why Okrand doesn’t want to get specific about this stuff.
So, we have to guess. It’s probably the most obviously vague area of Klingon grammar.
To be fair, in any language, there are certain nouns that work great as direct objects of certain verbs and other nouns that, by cultural convention, should not be used. If you speak the language, you know which nouns work and which ones don’t. If you don’t speak the language as a native, you can easily err out of honest ignorance, as we are doomed to do in Klingon.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 22, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylIS.net <mailto:Hugh@qeylIS.net>> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2020, at 11:03, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
When writing a dictionary, remember that it's not just whether a word is transitive or intransitive, it's whether a particular sense of a word is transitive or intransitive. A translating dictionary will tell you that Suv means fight, but it may not tell you that it can be used transitively, where the object is the entity being fought against, or intransitively, where the subject is engaging in a general activity of fighting, possibly against itself. It's not enough just to say "Suv is transitive."
We also don’t actually know with certainty whether many verbs are transitive or intransitive. We just use them transitively or intransitively based on how we interpret their glosses. Just recently somebody on the Discord server was asking how, if {voQ} is intransitive, one could use it in a sentence like “A choked B”. The answer, of course, would be to use {-moH}, but that answer is completely dependent on the assumption that {voQ} is intransitive in the first place. I think it is a bit of a stretch, in the absence of canonical examples of that verb being used. And even if we have a canonical example of it being used either transitively or intransitively, that doesn’t rule out it behaving like {meQ}, unless we have very explicit information that it’s *only* used some ways and not others, which is a level of information we really don’t have for most verbs. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto: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
On 2/24/2020 4:55 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Transitivity is a little messy in Klingon.
We have a few examples, like {vum} which we know is “intransitive” in the sense that the subject is the thing moving and if an agent causes something else to move, then {vemmoH [agent]}. We didn’t get that from canon examples. We got it from a conversation with Okrand about that specific verb. He doesn’t talk about most verbs like that, so we have to guess.
I think you mean *vIH,* not *vum* or *vem.* Okrand told us that the intention behind that was /be in motion,/ not /cause something to move./
Even if we have an example or two of a verb being used transitively or intransitively, we can’t know for sure if the non-canon interpretation of canon is wrong if we haven’t had that explained to us because some verbs get used both ways. We also know why this is true:
Okrand doesn’t want to mark a verb one way and later forget and use it the other way, so he doesn’t want to tell us which way is right so we won’t come back to him and tell him later that he’s using it wrong.
How do you know this is his motivation? Are you guessing?
{ja’} and {jatlh} has changed over time, for example. Originally, the direct object of {ja’} was the person spoken to,
No, originally we didn't have an examples of a direct object on *ja'**.* We DID have examples of prefixes on *ja',* but nowhere did it tell us that the prefix shown was necessarily a direct object. It's now quite clear that prefixes don't always agree with a direct object, and they didn't even when TKD was written.
and the direct object of {jatlh} was the language or noun-representing-words-being-said (like a poem or a speech). It was a neat difference between the two verbs. Then it got smeared by canon example, and now, it’s not really obvious that either verb is wrong for either kind of object.
*jatlh* and *ja'* never meant the same thing just with different syntax. *jatlh* /speak, say/ and *ja'* /tell, report/ have different translations. One means something like "vocalize words," while the other means something like "impart information." Both can be used the same special way in sentence-as-object constructions, but that's about the end of it. All we needed was confirmation as to what sort of direct object *ja'* could take, and we now have that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
Hugh Son puqloD -
Lieven L. Litaer -
SuStel -
Will Martin