Verbifying nouns?

[Kesvirit]

It has taken a long time for me merely to verbalize this question, so I hope those reading it will understand it. }}: \

According to TKD section 3.2.2, in thlIngan Hol one can "nounify" a verb by adding the {wI'}; verb + {wI} = noun, in the sense of "one or thing which [verbs]".

I have tried to figure out a similar way to verbify nouns in tlhIngan. One who knows of such things assures me that it cannot be done.
Was she correct? {lughpu'a'?}
And what is the best way around this, if indeed there is one? When used properly English grammar does not allow for this, but thlIngan Hol has its advantages over English.

-=- Kesvirit

[ngabwI]

The process that you call "nounify-ing" (very cute, BTW.) }}: ) is more commonly referred to as "nominalization".

Oddly enough, no metalinguistic term for the "verbify-ing" of a noun readily springs to mind. (Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I can't seem to recall one right now. I think the Thorazine is wearing off...) }}: )

I, too, have noticed a tendency for some speakers to use nouns as verbs, but I've always seen it as language play. (At least in English. Like my personal insistence that the past tense of "sneeze" is "snoze".) }}: )

As far as doing so in the Hol is concerned, I would feel comfortable verbify-ing a noun, as long as it was clear to all present what I was trying to say, and that it is intended as play. But if I was, say, doing a website translation, I would shy away from the usage.

Which noun are you verbing? }}; )

HovpoH 702868.7

[Kesvirit]

The process that you call "nounify-ing" (very cute, BTW.) }}: ) is more commonly referred to as "nominalization".

Ah! My thanks for the term. I did not get far looking for the term "nounify".

Oddly enough, no metalinguistic term for the "verbify-ing" of a noun readily springs to mind. (Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I can't seem to recall one right now.

That is good to know, and would explain why the search engine yielded no non-slang examples of it.

I think the Thorazine is wearing off...) }}: )

Oh.
::pauses to consider this::
I see.
::doesn't really. Thinks some more::
Should I be concerned over this development?

I, too, have noticed a tendency for some speakers to use nouns as verbs, but I've always seen it as language play. (At least in English. Like my personal insistence that the past tense of "sneeze" is "snoze".) }}: )

The one example I kept encountering was: "'mouse' has been verbified by computer users". I am coming to suspect that verbifying takes place primarily among young native English speakers who have yet to get a firm grip on the language, and older, ah, children who set out to set themselves apart by breaking it. }}; )

As far as doing so in the Hol is concerned, I would feel comfortable verbify-ing a noun, as long as it was clear to all present what I was trying to say, and that it is intended as play. But if I was, say, doing a website translation, I would shy away from the usage.

So my earlier conclusion, that verbification is slang and thus a matter of formality (or lack thereof), was a correct one?

Which noun are you verbing? }}; )

None in particular, at the moment. I was just ondering if it were an option that tlhIngan Hol offered that English does not. Because the vocabulary is so limited, I was hoping that as a constructed language the syntax would be more flexible to make up for it. A clear-cut way of verbifying nouns would be a big start.

But I am puzzled over why most(?) languages appear to have a way to nounify --er, nominalize verbs, but not to verbify nouns. Does anyone care to speculate as to why this might be?

-=- Kesvirit

[qoSagh]

When would there be a need for this, in Hol or English? I can only think of slang examples and they are all known for thier humorousness in addition to thier usefulness. Each of these times there is a verb that could be used and commonly understood, but the slang used makes the story funny and in one case brings back fond(ish) memories,

It does sound like an interesting concept, but I'm not sure I see any real application for it.

[Kesvirit]

It is an "interesting concept" because while there are numerous instances of nominalization (the process of turning a noun into a verb by adding the appropriate suffix), there is no reverse (inverse?) process with which to turn a noun into a verb.

The obvious need and application for it is to add a greater range of options to our collective verbal repetoir. It has nothing to do with a sentimental yearning for a time before fully developing language skills. }}>: (

I am looking for a better reason as to why this cannot be done than:
 -  "Because it is grammatically improper,"
 -  "Because it has always been dome that way,"
 -  or that perpetual favorite amongst Klinfolk, "Because Mark says so."
I do not take kindly to others, be they teachers, editors, or self-styled linguists or grammarians, taking it upon themselves to constrain my words.

It was my hope that some creative conlanger had toyed around with the syntactic elements of an artificial language such as tlhIngan Hol AND in doing so had discovered new and unintended ways to put these elements together without violating the pre-established rules AND that a byproduct of this would have been a method for verbifying nouns. *pant pant pant*

Hope springs eternal, does it not? }}: \

-=- Kesvirit
 

[qoSagh]

The fond memories I spoke of were not of pre language times it was of the event that led to the specific slang. As for things being gramatically improper, I would think that most of our language was at one time or another in this category. That does not even bring up differences between dialects within a language that often have different gramar.

As for what Mark says, well I suppose that we have to give credit where credit is due, in that Mark made up the whole thing. That being said, there has been quite alot of "field work" done by other Klinfolk that has contributed to the larger scene with the language. I have also found there to be a related category to this favorite: the "If Lawrence doesn't aprove it, it isn't so" sub set, but that is another story entirely.

I was just wondering if there was a word or a few words that you were looking to modify to fit a specific need, or if this was just a general question. I guess this is a general question, which make the ensuing debate less time sensitive at least.

[Klythe]

It was my hope that some creative conlanger had toyed around with the syntactic elements of an artificial language such as tlhIngan Hol AND in doing so had discovered new and unintended ways to put these elements together without violating the pre-established rules AND that a byproduct of this would have been a method for verbifying nouns. *pant pant pant*

    Klingon was designed to be as strange and 'alien' as possible while still being believable as a natural evolved language.   He breaks a lot of rules and picks and chooses the execptions(pur  to make the rules.

    Now...  I know for a fact that there are conlangs  where there is no distinction between nouns and verbs.  I'm mentioned one on the boards before...  But this is not about other languages...

    If you actually want to treat Klingon as a language and not the intellectual property of Paramount and Mark Okrand, you still wouldn't just be able to verb your nouns(use bare verbs as nouns, such as 'to mouse' or 'to antique') because many verb/noun pair have the same sounds.   Although you could verbify them (attach a prefix that would mark them as a verb).

    The most obvious suffix to use is -moH cause to happen.    This is still insufficient to use as a general rule as it won't eliminate noun/verb homonym ambigouity...   But it could be useful if you wanted to coin a word such as 'enslave'.

toy To serve
toywI' the thing that serves   --- A servent
toywI''a'  The thing that serves beyond serving  ----  A Slave
toywi''a'moH To cause to be a thing that serves beyond serving      ---  To enslave.

     I think you would be understood if you verbified in this way, but don't be suprised when the language police tell you how wrong you are.   But when it comes down to being able to express yourself directly, forcefully and honestly and be understood... In my mind sometimes you got to break the rules get get your point acrossed.   SapIr and Worf will just have to deal.

[ Corrected some of the bad spelling - Klythe]

[Kesvirit]

I do not know why this post did not take yesterday, but it is severely trying what is left of my patience.

As for things being gramatically improper, I would think that most of our language was at one time or another in this category.

With the exception of constructed languages (conlangs) such as tlhIngan Hol. To my knowledge, these have not been around long enough or used by enough people to have undergone the linguistic drift and changes in acceptablle usage to which naturally evolved languages are subject.

As conlangs are not a specialty of mine, I look forward to being corrected if my knowledge is lacking.

As for what Mark says, well I suppose that we have to give credit where credit is due, in that Mark made up the whole thing.

Perhaps. But I refuse to worship him for it as others are content to worship Kahless.

That being said, there has been quite alot of "field work" done by other Klinfolk that has contributed to the larger scene with the language.

I had hoped that some had directed their energies in this direction. I myself lack the abilities with which to manupulate syntax to achieve my goals.

I have also found there to be a related category to this favorite: the "If Lawrence doesn't aprove it, it isn't so" sub set, but that is another story entirely.

It is a story I would like to hear, if the one is willing to tell it.

I was just wondering if there was a word or a few words that you were looking to modify to fit a specific need, or if this was just a general question. I guess this is a general question, which make the ensuing debate less time sensitive at least.

Nothing specific. Yet. Merely looking to expand my arsenal for use in life's neverending battles of thought warfare.

Having said that...

If you actually want to treat Klingon as a language and not the intellectual property of Paramount and Mark Okrand... *** you could verbify them (attach a prefix that would mark them as a verb).

Do you mean "Section 3: Veb suffixes" in the "Klingon Affixes" chapter of TKD? (P. 163/167 in the trade paperback ed.)

I think you would be understoond if you verbed in this way, but don't be suprised when the language police tell you how wrong you are.

The language police are strongly encouraged to prostrate themselves before my sig.  

[Klythe]

With the exception of constructed languages (conlangs) such as tlhIngan Hol. To my knowledge, these have not been around long enough or used by enough people to have undergone the linguistic drift and changes in acceptablle usage to which naturally evolved languages are subject.

    When a conlang is controlled, and there is one person or a group of people who have made had fast set in stone rules, and final say over what is right and wrong, then what you have is a language that lives only in captivity if it is truely alive at all it is alive only be constant life support.

    A Constructed Language (in this case 'Planned Language' is the more appropriate term) that has word construction rules (morphology) that people can use to coin new words and phrases, has some life of it's own.  Klingon does not have this.   That doesn't stop some people from inventing thier own unofficial Klingon slang for the words they need.  Of course these almost always remain unofficial and therefore aren't really part of the language or linguistic drift.

   So Yeah, I would say that there are conlangs around long enough to have linguistic drift, but very very few are designed to even allow it as a possibility.


     And, ummm... yes, that was what I meant.. verb suffixes, not prefixes...  Bad Klythe.  No Rokeg Blood Pie.

[Klythe]

    Another way of "nouning" or nominalizing a verb is the suffix -ghach.  Restrictions apply.  But Dr. Okrand clarifies some of them in this interview.