tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 07 13:35:16 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: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 13:35:16 -0400 (EDT)
Too much mail? Try the [email protected] version of this list!
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> >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.
The doctor quickly ordered, "Slowly give me a hypo!"
> QIt Hergh QaywI' yInob tlhob Qel.
The doctor asked, "Slowly give me a hypo!"
Note that this verb of speech is very strange for an imperitive
statement.
> Hergh QaywI' yInob QIt thlob Qel.
The doctor slowly asked, "Giiiiiiiiiiive meeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaa
hyyyyyyyyyyyypoooooo!"
[Sorry. I couldn't resist.]
> pe'vIl HIvwI' yInob tlhob yaS.
The officer asked, "Forcefully give me an attacker!" or:
The officer forcefully asked, "Give me an attacker!"
Note that there is no way to disambiguate between these, since
the object of the verb of speech would follow that verb's
oject, which is the quotation.
> HIvwI' yInob pe'vIl tlhob yaS.
This is grammatically incorrect, since you have an adverbial
following the direct object of the verb of speech.
> 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:
Meanwhile, I have no reason to accept your arguments that
{-wI'} operates on entire sentences. Believe me: This Is Not A
Good Idea.
> 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."
I just don't buy it. You are making up a style of speech to
manage a new leg of grammar that you have created with no canon
and no mention in TKD and no extra-TKD sanctification by
Okrand. I just don't buy it. The cost exceeds the benefit.
> >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'}:
It is not an exact equivalence. {V-wI'} is a subset of {V-bogh
vay'}. The latter can take adverbials and objects. The former
cannot. That is because the latter is a relative clause while
the former is a nominalized verb. There is a fundamental
difference between the options available to a clause and those
available to a single word.
> {QIt Hergh Qaybogh jan'e' yInob.} Do you have any problems with this?
No.
> >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.
So you then extend that to include adverbials as well as noun
objects. So where exactly DO you draw the line? I draw it
simply: {-wI'} is a verb nominalizer. Period. It does not apply
to any words other than the single verb all by itself. That's
all TKD says it does. That's all that any canon examples use it
for. Now, we have a boundary. Your way, we don't, since there's
no established way to determine the difference between a
"simple" sentence and a "complex" one.
> >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.
Interesting that you chose to use a dependent clause that does
not have a Type 9 suffix at all to show how ambiguous
adverbials are with verbs with Type 9 suffixes...
Still, I take your argument seriously and you do have a point.
Meanwhile, MY point is that we don't need yet another way to
make the word order ambiguous. We really don't gain nearly as
much as we lose.
> > 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.
Well, your falling rock example doesn't show ANYTHING about
Type 9 suffixes because it doesn't have a Type 9 suffix in it.
Still, the point about adverbials is that you have no
justification for applying them to nominalized verbs. Face it,
you are applying an adverbial to a NOUN. Once a verb gets
{-wI'} applied to it, that word is no longer a verb. It is a
noun, and if you try to apply an adverbial to it, you are
simply wrong.
Deal with it.
> >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.
First of all, your explanation doesn't really help anything.
The Noun-noun construction does a fine job of describing {HoS
lIngwI'}. Secondly, it opens the door to your misuse of
adverbials.
> Come on, people. Is this to be simply a "charghwI'/ghunchu'wI' debate"?
> Let's get some more critical thought in here.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
I agree on that one. I'll be very disappointed to find that I
am expressing a controversial perspective that lacks popular
support. I expect that anyone who thinks much about this would
agree with me.
That has nothing to do with my history. I don't want anyone to
agree with me because I'm charghwI'. I'm looking for agreement
because I honestly believe that this extention of the use of
{-wI'} is unnecessary, unjustifiable and potentially
destructive to the structure of a Klingon sentence. We don't
need strange, new ways to be ambiguous.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |