tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 05 13:27:00 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 12:27:00 -0500
>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.
QIt Hergh QaywI' yInob nom ra' Qel.
QIt Hergh QaywI' yInob tlhob Qel.
Hergh QaywI' yInob QIt thlob Qel.
pe'vIl HIvwI' yInob tlhob yaS.
HIvwI' yInob pe'vIl tlhob yaS.
These are all different. You made it easier on me by asking for
two-sentence constructions. If one accepts my argument that {-wI'}
operates on entire sentences then they are indeed ambiguous, but not much
more so than the English equivalents:
The doctor ordered quickly, "Give a device which transfers medicine
slowly." The officer asked, "Give a device which hits forcefully."
The final adverb can be construed to modify either the "give" or the action
of the device. Here, word order does not help much, but the stresses and
pauses when spoken can.
QIt Hergh QaywI' yInob. "Give him an IV drip."
QIt -- Hergh QaywI' yInob. "Give him a hypo -- slowly."
>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.
I'm not really proposing that we start using {-wI'} on full-blown
complicated sentences. First, it would obviously disturb the sensibilities
of many of you to have the language apparently extended in this way.
Second, it would be unnecessary. We already have another way to do what
{-wI'} does. {V-wI'} is equivalent to {V-bogh vay'}:
{QIt Hergh Qaybogh jan'e' yInob.} Do you have any problems with this?
>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.
Look, I'm not trying to make sentences any more complicated. Really I'm
not. I'm not trying to make it any "easier" to translate English to
Klingon. I am NOT trying to expand on the use of {-wI'}. What I AM trying
to do is offer an explanation for {N V-wI'}. I sincerely believe that
calling it a noun-noun construction is more of a stretch than calling it a
(simple) sentence with {-wI'} on the verb.
>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.
Oh? {nom pumtaHvIS nagh jIghItlh.} TKD 5.4: Adverbials "...usually come
at the beginning of a sentence...." Is the rock falling quickly, or do I
write quickly? I don't know how to resolve this without using two
sentences.
> 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 don't think {-wI'} is the root of this ambiguity. I think my falling
rock shows that other type 9 suffixes can cause confusion.
>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.
I hadn't actually intended my argument to lead to a "technique" for
composing sentences in Klingon. However, having done what you suggest, I
can say that the only problems I see are those which arise whenever I try
to use type 9 suffixes and adverbials simultaneously. I DON'T think it
improves clarity, but it also doesn't destroy it. What I DID intend to do
was reduce the need to stretch the noun-noun concept of "possession"
further by offering an alternative explanation for {HoS lIngwI'} et al.
Come on, people. Is this to be simply a "charghwI'/ghunchu'wI' debate"?
Let's get some more critical thought in here.
-- ghunchu'wI'