tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 25 09:46:18 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: Question about -bogh

According to ADM::RSORENSEN"@tiny.computing.csbsju.edu:
> 
> > > This chocolate is for the officer whom he hit.
> > > ? yaSvaD qIppu'bogh 'oH yuchvam'e'
> > 
> > Ignore the relative clause altogether:
> > 
> > * yaSvaD 'oH yuchvam'e'.
> > 
> > This is not a valid sentence. You are going from the English,
> > "This chocolate is for the officer," and you are not
> > considering the limits of the <noun pronoun noun'e'>
> > construction.
> 
> I spent a good chunk of yesterday evening trying to find the limits to 
> which you refer. Do you have a source I can look at? I haven't had time to 
> go back to the dawn of time in the archives yet, so my apologies if I'm 
> holding up a dead horse for further abuse.

All we have on the use of pronouns as verbs is in TKD on pages
67 and 68. First, we are told that you can have a noun followed
by a pronoun corresponding to the English meaning of [I am, you
are, etc.]. No use of {-'e'} yet, right? Next we are explicitly
told that the pronoun always follows the noun.

Next, we are told about how pronouns are used to indicate the
sense of "to be at a place." The example appears to be another
instance of pronoun following the noun, but I suggest that the
locative is not acting as a noun in the same way that the
earlier examples illustrate. The locative is acting as a
locative, which is closer to an adverbial than to a noun in
function. In essence, {pa'wIjDaq jIHtaH} is more closely
related to {jIHtaH} or to {reH jIHtaH} than to {tlhIngan
jIHtaH}.

Still, we have no instances of the use of {-'e'} with nouns
accompanying pronouns.

We receive THAT description to cover nouns that are acting as
subject instead of object in its relationship with the pronoun.
In particular, we are given two types of examples. In one, we
have two nouns bound by the "to be" glue of a pronoun. One noun
is the subject and the other is the object and the pronoun acts
as a verb relating them to one another. The construction is
very strange, so the use of {-'e'} fits right in.

The second example goes back to the sense of the pronoun used
in the sense of "to be at a place". {pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'.}
Your example about chocolate does not fit any of these cases.
You are extending the sense of "to be at a place" to cover ANY
Type 5 suffix, which I sincerely believe to be stepping well
beyond the bounds of Okrand's license. Guido #1 aggrees with
you, equally without any visable grounds.

There is no place that justifies the use of a noun as subject
with pronoun as verb and no noun as object, except to cover the
sense of "to be at a place." Nouns are subjects and pronouns
are verbs only when there is a noun as object or a sense of "to
be at a place." Okrand can easily define more for us, but he
has not done so yet.

> >From MO's description of -vaD (for, intended for) and the "to be" section,
> it seems this sentence can say:
> 
> As for this chocolate, it is intended for the officer.

This extends into a meaning for {-'e'} which after much
argument seems to have been rejected. While Okrand uses the
term "topicalizer", he seems instead to use it for emphasis
rather than topic indicator. There simply aren't any examples
where a noun appears at the beginning of a sentence with {-'e'}
on it that does not also have another specific grammatical
reason for its position in the sentence.

As a true topicalizer, it could announce that this noun is the
topic and then have a sentence that does not place this noun as
subject or object. That is never how it is used in Klingon.
Instead, the {-'e'} suffix is added to a noun that is already
being used as subject or object just to add emphasis to that
noun as a focal point of the sentence. It is also used to point
out the head noun of a relative clause and it is placed on the
subject of a sentence that has a pronoun as its verb. Period.

Am I really being all that unreasonable in taking this
position? Is my interpretation here so oblique to the norm that
I should reconsider my position? I would especially appreciate
anyone pointing out the place where Okrand says this applies to
any Type 5 noun suffix. I've looked for it and can't find it
anywhere.

> > This sentence steps beyond those limits...
> 
> If I read your interpretation correctly, then the examples in TKD, page 68, 
> could be read, e.g.:
> 	In his quarters, the commander is...
> 
> ..Is shaving? Dressing? Sleeping? It doesn't specifywhat he's doing in 
> his quarters, only that presently that's his location. 

Exactly. He is fulfilling the sense of "to be in a place". TKD
says nothing about pronouns being used as verbs for subjects
fulfilling the sense of "to be for someone or something". You
are using the wrong verb, if I'm reading Okrand correctly.
Pronouns act as the verb "to be" only as a link to another noun
(as in to be the equivalent of, or a member of) or as "to be in
a place". Other English uses of "to be" don't exist in Klingon
as represented by pronouns used as verbs. Instead, we have all
those adjectival verbs and other similar devices to recast the
sentences away from the ubiquitous English "to be".

> Likewise, if I intend 
> "this chocolate" for that officer, I may not need to specify what he does
> with it, or why I'm providing it.

You have no justifiable reason to make chocolate the subject of
the pronoun. If the pronoun were being used to make the
membership link or locative link, you would have a reason, but
you don't.

> I agree, the statement is inherently vague with respect to my motive for 
> providing chocolate (or a medikit, or whatever). I think context would 
> provide some clue as to my intent. Maybe chocolate's a great palliative 
> for klingon wounds.

You miss the point.

> > > (pg. 64 para. 2): "The whole construction...is used...as a noun". 
> > 
> > Except for the use of Type 5 noun suffixes applied to verbs
> > that are used adjectivally, or any noun suffix following a verb
> > with the {-wI'} or {-ghach} suffixes, we have no justification
> > for applying noun suffixes to verbs.
> 
> But the verb here is in a construction which, according to my quote from 
> MO above, acts like a noun. I know, it looks awkward, and if a decision is 
> ever made about where to put n-5 suffixes in a rel clause this is probably 
> not the place.

You seem to have deleted the example in question. As I remember
it, you placed a noun suffix on a verb. The verb was not
nominalized with either {-wI'} or {-ghach} and it was not an
adjectival verb following a noun with a Type 5 noun suffix.
These are the only places we can justify placing noun suffixes
on verbs. There are no "but"s. No matter what your perspective
toward the grammatical structure of any given example, these
are the only places where noun suffixes are allowed on verbs.
You cannot justify placing noun suffixes on verbs under any
other conditions unless Okrand explains some new extention to
the grammar.

> 
> 'ej vaj tlhetlh
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roger Sorensen                                 "...and so it goes."
> St. John's University Computing Services         -- Linda Ellerbee
> Collegeville MN 56321-2000
> 
> [email protected]      v:612-363-2035     f:612-363-2761
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level