tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 04 09:17:54 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 09:17:54 -0400 (EDT)
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> I wrote:
> > [{-wI'} is just another Type 9 suffix, applying to entire sentences]
> > >I'm very proud of this argument, but I'm willing to listen to criticism.
>
> charghwI' writes:
> >Gee. I guess I let that one slip by. I'd argue with it only
> >slightly.
>
> Hold that thought; I'll refer to it at the end of my note.
Having read your response, I no longer slightly argue with you.
Now, I DEFINITELY argue with you.
...
> >It doesn't
> >really work with adverbials or other chuvmey that might modify
> >a sentence. It doesn't really work with nouns acting as subject
> >or object of the verb.
>
> WHY doesn't it work with a modifier? Try {QIt Hergh QaywI'} for
> an IV drip, or {pe'vIl HivwI'} for a sledgehammer.
Neither of these work for me at all. There is no canon for it.
There is no justification for it in any of the grammar
described in TKD. If its use were allowed, the resulting
sentences would be very ambiguous, convoluted and confusing.
Using your terms, try to write, "The doctor quickly ordered an
IV drip." Now, try "The doctor asked for an IV drip." Now try,
"The officer slowly asked for a hypo." How about, "The officer
asked for a sledge hammer." Now, try, "The officer forcefully
asked for a hammer." What you are suggesting is a royal mess.
More simply, you are trying to stretch a limited but useful
grammatical device beyond its limits, making it far less
useful. If Okrand went along with this, I would accept it, but
frankly I'd be amazed.
While Okrand has complete control over the language and I am
merely a student of his materials, so far I've done quite well
at predicting his approach to questions like these. I was
basically right about the use of {-ghach}, even more than
Krankor (whose opinion I very much respect, since he inspired
me to learn the langauge more than anyone else so far). I was
also right about the {law'/puS} construction.
Krankor's expansion on the use of {-'e'} to mark head nouns in
relative clauses made sense in the grammar as it was previously
presented. It was a small change that made a major impact on
the ability of the language to express a thought clearly.
Suggestions on how to more expansively use {-ghach} or the
{law'/puS} construction made it easier to convert English
sentences into Klingon ones, but it did not serve the function
of making the resulting Klingon sentences clearer and the
desired functions were better attained with other grammatical
devices.
This current attempt to expand on the use of {-wI'} beyond its
original intent feels a lot more like the expansion of {-ghach}
and the expansion of {law'/puS} than it does like the expansion
of the use of {-'e'} to mark head nouns in ambiguous relative
clauses. It is a marked change, and while it would make it a
small bit easier to convert English text to Klingon text, it
does not fit the Klingon sentence structure well enough to
improve the resulting Klingon text.
Another way to express it is that English relies heavily on
helping words. Klingon allows a few of them, but for the most
part relies much more heavily on affixes to provide the
functions we get out of helping words in English. When you add
{-wI'} to a verb, it becomes a noun and behaves as a noun in
the sentence. This is far less ambiguous than allowing entire
sentences become converted into nouns by adding {-wI'} to the
verb.
Nominalizers are fundamentally different from other Type 9 verb
suffixes. Why? Well, other Type 9 suffixes place the verb in a
separate, dependent clause from the rest of the sentence. Most
commonly, this comes before the main clause containing the main
verb (though some are allowed to follow the main clause).
Nominalizers place the resulting verbs within the main clause
as subject or object, or alongside adverbials as locatives or
indirect objects.
With other Type 9 suffixes, you can tell which nouns,
adverbials, etc. are attached to the Type 9 verb and which ones
are attached to the main verb because of the word order in the
basic structure of a Klingon sentence. Nominalized verbs are
placed within the main clause in at least three different
places. Any associated nouns would then be thrown into any of
nine places in the sentence. Adverbials would be thrown into
any of three places, two of which would be the same place as an
adverbial applied to the main verb. This is highly destructive
to the fundamental word ordering of a Klingon sentence.
> I know, the
> dictionary doesn't say it can work this way. There isn't canon
> support for these suggestions. But all of the other type 9 verb
> apply to entire sentences. Even if {chuvmey} are forbidden, the
> point of my argument is that dealing with a specified object on
> a verb with {-wI'} can be a better explanation than calling the
> phrase a noun-noun construction.
I simply disagree. By interpreting this particular example as a
sentence converted into a noun or as a noun-noun construction,
the result makes symatic sense. Meanwhile, interpreting it as a
sentence converted into a noun is not grammatically
justifiable. The symatics work, but the syntax fails.
> >It really works with verbs. That's pretty much that. You can
> >have other non-Type 9 suffixes on the verbs, so the verb
> >otherwise does behave as it would IN a complete sentence, and
> >well affixed verbs can act as complete sentences, but complete
> >sentences can and often do contain chuvmey and nouns, while the
> >verb with {-wI'} is a single word that becomes a noun and as
> >such cannot be attached to adverbials or any other kind of word
> >except in its relationship as a noun.
>
> Is {-wI'} on a complete sentence really as bad as you make it out
> to be? I hope to hear from others regarding this.
> {Qanqor bIladtaH'a'?}
Bring them on. I genuinely believe that anyone who considers
the impact of this would conclude that it is a very bad idea.
> >If I refer to a {HIq tlhutlhqa'taHwI'} (one who repeatedly and
> >continuously drinks liquor), what I am REALLY saying is a
> >NOUN-NOUN construction. It is not the sentence {HIq
> >tlhutlhqa'taH} with {-wI'} tagged on the end.
>
> I doubt that. My argument is precisely the opposite: it really
> IS the sentence {HIq tlhutlhqa'taH} with {-wI'} on the verb.
>
> >If you doubt
> >that, try adding {-wI'} to pIj HIq tlhutlh. It doesn't work.
> >{pIj} needs a verb acting as a verb, and you'll nip that in the
> >bud when you add {-wI'} to {tlhutlh}.
>
> You call this "only slightly" arguing? :-) I obviously have less
> trouble with this than you do.
Try writing complete sentences using your idea and then allow
the public forum see the result. Don't just show a phrase and
say that it works for you even if it doesn't work for me. Write
a substantial collection of complete sentences using your
technique and then try to defend how it improves our ability to
write clear prose in Klingon. I think you will run into
problems that you have not as yet foreseen.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |