tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 08 16:01:06 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
}} {-wI'} on sentences (more)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: }} {-wI'} on sentences (more)
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 16:01:06 -0400
ja'ta' ghunchu'wI':
> QIt Hergh QaywI' yInob nom ra' Qel.
"Dr quickly orders - give the hypo slowly." I would not have
interpreted <Qit Hergh QaywI'> as "IV drip" if I hadn't seen it
in previous postings. I associate <Qit> with <nob>.
> QIt Hergh QaywI' yInob tlhob Qel.
"Dr asks - give the hypo slowly." I wouldn't use <tlhob> and the
command prefixes together like this. To me, <tlhob> wants the
"sentence as object" construction using <'e'> or a simple
statement construction. <tlhob> simply doesn't carry the strength
of a command.
QIt Hergh QaywI' Danob tlhob Qel. or
Qit Hergh QaywI' Danob =91e' tlhob Qel.
My same feeling apply to the following sentences.
> Hergh QaywI' yInob QIt thlob Qel.
> pe'vIl HIvwI' yInob tlhob yaS.
> HIvwI' yInob pe'vIl tlhob yaS.
"Dr slowly asks - give hypo."
"Officer asks - give attacker (hammer ?) forcefully."
(What's he asking? "Throw it at me"? This sounds like the
Monty Python vegetable self-defence class. =
choHIvmeH naH yIlo'.)
"Officer forcefully asks - give attacker (hammer ?)."
> 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 English is much less ambiguous because we're not limited to
placing the adverbial in only one location. We could say "Dr
ordered - give a device which transfers medicine slowly -
quickly" but that is confusing and we move the "quickly" to the
verb it describes, namely "ordered". Okrand allows us to move
adverbials immediately before the verb, IF we mark this transfer
with <-'e'> on the direct object. I can't imagine what this would
look like with a Type-5 object, or a sentence-as-object
construction. (That makes my head hurt!)
> ...word order does not help much, but the stresses and pauses
> when spoken can.
=2E...that is assuming that tlhInganpu' use stresses and pauses in
speech the way English-speakers do. Not all Terran languages do.
>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.
> 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?
ghobe'. I think this gets the point across much clearer than
using <-wI'>, although <QIt> is still ambiguous.
> 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.
I guess that depends on how you think of N-N constructs.
Personally, I have no problem with the genitive case, being a
fluent Irish speaker. That's how I interpret N-N, even though
some members of this list feel a "genitive" interpretation goes a
tad too far.
>>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.
nom pumtaHvIS nagh jIghItlh.
I write "the rock is falling quickly"
pumtaHvIS nagh'e' nom jIghItlh.
I write quickly "the rock is falling"
(as I get out of it's way)
> Come on, people. Is this to be simply a "charghwI'/ghunchu'wI'
> debate"? Let's get some more critical thought in here.
juqaDta' 'ej jIjangta'.