tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 10 13:37:22 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} {-wI'} on sentences
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} {-wI'} on sentences
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:37:22 -0400 (EDT)
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> I will heretofore confine my arguments to canon phrases and I will refrain
> from creating theoretical examples.
maj.
> The noun-noun construction is labeled by Marc Okrand simply as
> "possessive." I am willing to entertain an expansion of the term
> "possessive" to include more than mere ownership. The article by d'Armond
> Speers in HolQeD 3:3 concludes that "genitive" is an appropriate
> interpretation of noun-noun, where "genitive" is rather loosely defined as
> involving a close connection with the head noun.
>
Another way to see it is that Okrand, knowing that he was
speaking to an audience largely consisting of non-linguists,
knew that most people understood the term "possessive", though
almost nobody would understand the term "genitive", used the
more broadly understood term and provided examples which
encompass both. Just replace N1-N2 with "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1".
> With the exception of two examples, I agree with that conclusion.
Your choice to exclude these two examples is arbitrary.
> Both
> exceptions, {Hergh QaywI'} and {woj choHwI'}, are of the form
> noun-verb-wI'. Treating the first as a simple noun-noun constructions, we
> get "medicine transferrer", a kind of "transferrer", with "medicine" having
> some connection with "transferrer".
Medicine's transferer. Transferrer of medicine. What is the
problem?
> The obvious connection is that
> medicine is what the transferrer transfers. Similarly, the second example
> is a kind of "changer", with radiation being what the changer changes. It
> appears that in a construction of this sort, the first noun is the object
> of the verb which has had {-wI'} placed on it. In this case, I think it
> makes sense to talk about a "thing which changes_radiation" rather than a
> "radiation's thing_which_changes."
Radiation's changer. Changer of radiation. Again, what is the
problem? Replacing the word "changer" with
"thing_which_changes" does nothing to add clarity.
> If we use {-bogh} to say the same thing, we can use something generic as
> the head noun: {woj choHbogh Doch}. Or we can be somewhat more descriptive
> with the redundant {woj choHbogh choHwI'}. If we permit {-wI'} to act on a
> verb which has an object, we can say {woj choHwI'}, which is what we say
> anyway.
This seems like you are building a walkway without much
foundation, then continue to build it farther out with less and
less under it. On a drawing board, it may look like it connects
point A to point B, but in the real world, it can't carry any
weight.
You don't have to take the word "changer" and make it {choHbogh
Doch} and then change that to {choHbogh choHwI'} and then claim
that this really means the same thing as {choHwI'} and since
{choHbogh choHwI'} can have an object, like {woj}, then so can
{choHwI'}.
In English, I could say, "changer" is the same thing as "thing
which changes", which is the same thing as "changer which
changes", which is the same thing as "changer", and since
"thing which changes" can take an object, like "energy", so can
"changer" alone, so "changer energy" really means "thing which
changes energy". Now, if I go around using the term "changer
energy", do you expect people to understand what I'm saying?
It is an accident that the word order in {woj choHwI'} is such
that {woj} is in the "object" position for the verb {choH},
since in fact, the word is not {choH}. It is {choHwI'}, which
is not a verb at all. It is a noun. {woj choHwI'} is a
noun-noun construction. That's all it is. It is perfectly
explainable as a noun-noun construction. There is no need to
modify Klingon grammar to explain it otherwise.
Deal with it.
> The end result is the same whether one considers it a noun-noun phrase or a
> simple sentence with {-wI'}.
I could say, "I hate Jim." I could say, "I hate gym." Until I
explained myself or you saw it written or there was some
context to clarify which I intended, there would be no way for
you to know which thought I intended to convey.
If context then explained that I meant, "I hate Jim [Kirk],"
and it made total sense to mean that, it would be rediculous
for you to come up with a long explanation on why I might
really be saying "I hate gym." The homophone is an accident of
the language, just like the word order of {woj choHwI'}.
> There is no impact on how well it will be
> understood.
THere is, however, a significant impact on the overall
structure of Klingon sentences if this misunderstanding of the
grammar were to be accepted and built upon.
> The tradeoff is between further expanding the definition of
> "possessive" and permitting {-wI'} to act on a verb with an object.
It's not a further expansion of possessive. There are lots of
canon examples that prompted Holtej to write his article.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |