tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 11 01:46:43 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: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 01:46:43 -0400 (EDT)
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> charghwI' writes:
> >...Just replace N1-N2 with "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1".
>
> But that would be a simple formulaic transformation between English and
> Klingon. I believe that such transformations are not always appropriate.
> For instance, we recently discussed {nav paq} and how the English "book of
> paper" means something that doesn't really fit the noun-noun construction
> in Klingon. I see a need to determine exactly what DOES fit the noun-noun
> construction.
As I remember it, we did not conclude that {nav paq} did not
suit the noun-noun construction. Instead, we concluded that it
was sufficiently vague in meaning that it did not serve the
original author's intent. They wanted "paper back book", and
"book of paper" sounded less like the opposite of "book with
hard cover" than it sounded like something different from a
"book of words". That's why I thought it might be a blank book.
> >> With the exception of two examples, I agree with that conclusion.
> >
> >Your choice to exclude these two examples is arbitrary.
>
> No, it's based on my failure to understand how {Hergh QaywI'} fits the
> definition of either possessive or genitive. My interpretation of
> noun-noun is that the first noun is the "owner" of the second noun, in one
> of the following senses:
> - literal ownership of an object, e.g. a child's ball
> - exclusive association, e.g. a nation's flag
> - territorial residence or occupation, e.g. a criminal's hideout
> - physical inclusion of a part, e.g. a table's leg
> - abstract inclusion of an aspect, e.g. magnetism's field
> - possession of an abstract concept, e.g. a group's opinion
> I do not see how medicine can "own" a transferrer in any way.
I vote for territorial residence or occupation, e.g. a
criminal's hideout. The medicine resides in the transferer. It
is the medicine's transferer. Even if the medicine is not
presently in the transferer, much as the criminal may not be
present in the hideout, the transferer is still the medicine's
transferer just like the hideout is still the criminal's
hideout.
> >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'}.
>
> Again, you are misstating my theory. There is a real difference between
> saying "{choHwI'} can have an object" and saying "{-wI'} can apply to {woj
> choH}." I am not trying to place an object on a noun by claiming that the
> noun used to be a verb before it received {-wI'}. I am trying to apply
> {-wI'} to a verb which ALREADY has an object.
And I am simply rejecting that out of hand. Since you have no
canon justification for beginning with a verb with an object
and then adding {-wI'} to that clause, you instead must be
taking a noun consisting of a verb with {-wI'} and claiming
that by some mysterious grammar, since the word once was a verb
before it became a noun, the object that could have been
associated with the verb can now be associated with the noun.
Verbs with {-meH} are referred to as "Purpose CLAUSES". Verbs
with {-bogh} are referred to as "Relative CLAUSES". Verbs with
{-wI'} are referred to as "nouns". Clauses can have objects.
Nouns cannot.
> >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?
>
> You derived the obviously nongrammatical "changer energy" by placing an
> object on a noun.
According to your argument, I did not derive the
non-grammatical "changer energy" by placing an object on a
noun. I instead magically transformed the noun "changer" into a
relative CLAUSE "thing which changes", then declared that this
was the equivalent of another relative CLAUSE "changer which
changes", and showed how clearly this relative CLAUSE can take
an object, as in "changer which changes energy", then the
equivalent to "changer which changes energy" is "changer
energy". I just replaced the relative CLAUSE with its
equivalent noun, just like you did.
> That noun was created by applying "er", the English
> equivalent of {-wI'}, to a verb.
Yes. I completely agree.
> Once more, this is NOT the sort of thing
> I am proposing!
No. This is EXACTLY what you are proposing. You just somehow
seem to consistently miss this point. You are taking a relative
CLAUSE and declaring it to be exactly equivalent to a noun, and
since the relative CLAUSE can take an object, you are declaring
that the noun can take one, too.
A noun is a word. A clause is a verb and its related nouns,
which can include an object. In certain instances, some
relative clauses can function symantically just like a noun,
but that does not mean that they are syntactically
interchangeable. Yes, a changer is a thing which changes, but
just because a thing which changes can be a thing which changes
energy, that does not mean that a changer can be a "changer
energy". You can't just replace the words "thing which changes"
by the word "changer" in one sweeping search-and-replace
command without resulting in some mighty weird sentences. You
have done nothing beyond replacing {choHbogh Doch} with
{choHwI'} in the relative clause {woj choHbogh Doch}.
The result of that process is grammatically meaningless. As it
happens, by accident, this same word order results in a
perfectly meaningful noun-noun construction with a meaning
similar to what you intended, even though the steps you have
taken to get there have nothing to do with Klingon grammar as
described in TKD or further revealed by Okrand through any
other source.
> >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.
>
> Meanwhile, I claim that it is an accident that the word order in {woj
> choHwI'} is such that it looks like a noun-noun construction, since in
> fact, the two apparent nouns are really a sentence with {-wI'} on the verb.
It is perfectly logical for Okrand to have nouns, compound
nouns and noun-noun constructions in the word list of TKD. It
is not at all logical for him to include word listings in TKD
which include clauses of any kind. I challenge you to show real
examples in the TKD word list of clauses, aside from these word
pairs you mistakenly read to be clauses, even though there is
no grammar section in TKD describing these mysterious noun
clauses, how they are constructed or how they are to be used.
> >{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.
>
> Please do explain {woj choHwI'} as a noun-noun construction. I began on
> this torturous path because I did not see an appropriate explanation.
See the beginning of this post.
> >Deal with it.
>
> When you have invoked this phrase in the past, I have always agreed with
> your premises and I could follow your logic. I have had to accept your
> conclusions; I have invariably agreed with you. However, in this case, I
> refuse to blindly accept the premise that {woj choHwI'} is a noun-noun
> construction.
I would not want you to blindly accept anything I say.
Meanwhile, I am massively frustrated at how well you seem to be
able to blindly reject the points I keep repeating, trying to
somehow find the right words to get across to you the inherant
difference between a clause and a noun. A nominalized verb is a
noun. It is not a clause. It is not a nominalized clause,
either. It is just a nominalized verb. Begin with a verb. Just
a verb. No adverbials. No objects. Just a verb. Add {-wI'} and
you get a noun. Period. It's a one trick pony. It does its
trick very nicely, but it only works on verbs, not clauses.
> I do not believe that it fits TKD's description of a
> noun-noun construction. The only two ways I see to "deal with it" are: 1)
> to expand noun-noun yet further to encompass everything that "N1's N2" or
> "N2 of N1" means in English, or 2) expand {-wI'} to permit it to operate on
> a sentence containing an object. I've not seen any compelling reason to
> choose one over the other. I personally prefer to limit noun-noun to as
> close to "possessive" as possible.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Thud! Thud! Thud! CRUNCH! Damn! I need a new desk again.
> >> The end result is the same whether one considers it a noun-noun phrase or a
> >> simple sentence with {-wI'}. 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.
>
> MEanwhile, I see a dilution in the quality of translation if Klingon's
> N1-N2 is interpreted to mean exactly "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1" in English.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |