[Tlhingan-hol] roj

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>> I made a mistake in using "uncontroversial". (jIjatlhHa' 'e' vIQagh.
>> :-) ) But my impression was that people would avoid producing such
>> constructions, yet accept them when presented with them (i.e., follow
>> what is called the robustness principle), and apparently I was wrong
>> about this.

ghunchu'wI':
> I'll "accept" them when someone *uses* such constructions, assuming
> they come close to making sense when translated into English. If I'm
> in a learning environment instead of just having a casual
> conversation, I'll probably comment on them and suggest a more
> universally understandable and definitely grammatical way to phrase
> the idea. But I won't let them stand unopposed when someone proposes
> them as examples of uncontroversially correct Klingon.

Fair point. I was too lenient in my understanding of the meaning of
those verbs, and I'll try to be more conservative.

De'vID:
>> English has verbs
>> for "tell a lie", "make a vow", "make a promise", but not a verb for
>> "tell the truth".

ghunchu'wI':
> Sure it does: aver. I'm not sure whether or not that weakens your
> argument, because I'm not sure what argument you're making with this
> example.

I'd actually thought that there must be an uncommon Latin-based word
for this (like "prevaricate" for "lie"), but didn't know what it was.

My point was that there are "make a statement"-type verbs which have
some similarity to each other, and that just because they behave
differently in English doesn't necessarily mean that they must do so
in Klingon. (It doesn't mean that they don't, either.)

De'vID:
>> What is the difference between "make a joke" and "make a beverage"
>> that makes it unlikely that the first verb takes an object while it is
>> uncontroversial that the second one can? That's what I'm trying to
>> determine.

ghunchu'wI':
> If there were a verb with the simple gloss "make a beverage", I'd
> treat it the same way I do "make a joke" or "make a mistake". That is,
> I'd assume it was like {Qong} and doesn't have an object.

Interesting. If there was a verb with the simple gloss "make a
beverage", I'd have treated it as a verb which can take a beverage as
its object.

ghunchu'wI':
> On the other hand, you seem to be proposing that "wage war" would
> imply that "war" is the object of {ghob}. The word {ghobchuq} tells us
> that's not the case.

If {roj} took an object, I would consider, based on its gloss, that a
possible object is some form of peace.

The phrase {noH ghoblu'DI' yay quv law' Hoch quv puS} confirms that
"war" can be the object of {ghob}. The word {ghobchuq} just tells us
that it can also be something else, too, not that it can't be "war".

ghunchu'wI':
> I think what you are failing to accept is that you are suggesting that
> we go ahead and use the words in ways that are neither attested in
> canon nor well supported by their glosses. In transient, spoken,
> casual speech, that's not much of a problem. But in print, on the
> internet, in widely-distributed fora or contexts that get archived for
> everyone to read, I think conservative usage is appropriate.

That's a fair point. If bI'reng had written a sentence with
{romuluSngan} as the object of {roj}, I'd understand it on reading,
but I wouldn't produce such a sentence myself. He asked us what we
thought of this. I expressed my opinion that {roj} can take an object,
but that it would be the noun {roj} or something similar. I'm not
suggesting that people produce sentences using the noun {roj} as the
object of the verb {roj}, and I should have been more clear on that.

-- 
De'vID