tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 05 17:17:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jaH
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jaH
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:16:00 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:24:36 -0800 Nick Nicholas
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:31:23 -0500 ()
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: jaH
> >Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> Now, *of course* I'm going to regret responding to this, particularly since
> I haven't gotten into a flamewar on this list for long enough, and I do have
> many and better things to do. Let this remind Will that this is what happens
> when you post so abrasively: you provoke responses in kind.
jISaHbe'. jabbI'IDvam DaghItlhDI' chonuQbe'.
...
> Not that this will endear me to Will, but let me go over his head, and ask
> the linguists on-line:
It doesn't bother me. On one hand, I'm accustomed to arrogance,
and on the other, if the jargon helps you to understand what is
going on here, fine. Enjoy the jargon.
> To Will: I just don't get it. Orbiting implies a location, but going doesn't.
> Still sounds like sophistry. If what you really mean is "for lack of better
> evidence, we must assume jaH behaves syntactically like 'go', because there
> is no proposition in the gloss" -- then say so. (I think you do, eventually.)
> And what I will tell you is that yes, it *probably* does, and the prudent way
> to use Klingon at the moment is to assume it does, but this can be annulled
> at a later date by Okrand, because it's not conclusive. But don't tell me
> 'go' "doesn't include a locative notion", because like most of Okrand's
> attempts to boil down linguistic jargon, the wording is too vague to hang
> anything like a 'definite' off --- much less something as eccentric as
> 'going' not including a locative notion!
It is far simpler than that, Nick. Okrand had his choice of many
words when he wrote the definitions. Part of the meaning of a
word is its relationship with its direct object, so when Okrand
chose his words for his definitions, he chose words which had
the same kind of relationship in English between verb and object
as the Klingon word.
That's why he defined {SaH} as "care about" and not just "care".
The word "care" does not have a relationship with a direct
object which you would get from a single word meaning "care
about". Similarly, the word "orbit" means roughly "go around".
If we had no word like "orbit", Okrand would have chosen "go
around" for {bav}. He would not have chosen "go".
{ghos} is defined as "approach" (among other things), and this
is the equivalent of "go to". Meanwhile, {jaH} is just plain
"go". If Okrand wanted {ghoS} and {jaH} to mean the same thing,
he would have given them the same definition in English. He
didn't. This is stong evidence that he wanted there to be a
fundamental difference between these two words.
That difference is quite plain and clearly evident. Why you
can't see it is beyond my ability to explain. You are obviously
quite intelligent and far better trained in linguistics than am
I. So why can't you get this? Okrand's choice of words in his
definitions are not accidental. Why can't you accept their
significance instead of deciding that somehow the prepositions
he puts in the English definitions of some verbs and not others
is something one should ignore?
"I go the store." Do you consider that to be good English? You
talk as if the word "go" includes the concept of "to" the way I
think "approach" includes it, but I see a fundamental difference
between "go" and "approach" and it is EXACTLY the same
fundamental difference as there is between {jaH} and {ghoS}. It
is in their definitions. "I approach the store." I would not
say, "I approach to the store." I would not say, "I go the
store." See?
> >> So, it's natural for 'el to take a direct object, because it's associated
> >> with an object as location, and it's natural for ghoS, but it's not
> >> natural
> >> for jaH, because the thing you go to is... not a location? And the
> >> difference between jaH and ghoS is that what you approach... is a
> >> location?
> > Yep. You go TO an object.
>
> In English.
Yes. In English. The language Okrand used to give his
definitions. It is not that English has some exceptional
inability to express a definition of a word from some other
language. When you are using a language (like English), you
search for a word or phrase which has a similar meaning and
grammatical function as the word you are trying to define. You
don't take a word which is intransitive and use it alone when
giving the definition of a word which is transitive, for
example. You would either choose a different word, or use a
phrase which would suggest an object (like "care for" instead of
"care"). I'm not saying that English is important here. I'm
saying that the words Okrand chose while he was using English is
important here.
He had a rather large vocabulary to choose from and he picked
the words he felt could best convey the meaning and function of
the words in Klingon. Why can't you accept that?
> > You don't just go an object.
>
> In English. The point is, this is an accident of English;
While this may well be an accident of English, choosing this
particular word in English was NOT an accident. You are acting
like Okrand lacked the ability to come up with a better
definition. Somehow you seem to think you can come up with a
better definition than he can. He says "go" quite plainly, so
you begin by saying it REALLY means "go to".
This is why I got sarcastic about you being psychic. You ignore
Okrand's actual wording and begin making up your own definition
and you claim to be understanding Okrand better than the quarter
of a million people who would read the definition of {jaH} and
accept it to mean "go" because that's what Okrand SAID it meant.
> it doesn't have the
> cosmic significance you seem to be attributing to it. (Cf. Esperanto, Old
> French, Colloquial Greek...) Klingon *could* be different; it's prudent not
> to assume it *is*, but it *could*.
If Okrand were using one of those other languages, he probably
would use equal care in his choice of words when writing the
definition.
> > That's the difference, and Okrand does use prepositions in his
> > definitions if they are implied in the verb.
>
> So we have assumed --- remember, assumed. An example from German: my
> dictionary glosses 'einsteigen' as 'get on'. It also glosses it as an
> intransitive: you don't einstege something, you einstege *in* it. What
> does this mean? That just because a dictionary has a verb + preposition
> in a definition, it does not mean that the preposition is somehow
> incorporated into the verb.
It doesn't sound like a very good dictionary. Of course, it is
giving you additional evidence with the indication of
intransitivity, which Okrand has not given us. Still, I give
Okrand credit for being able to find a better word than "go" to
define a word which is transitive. He would give some clue as to
the specific relationship between the verb and its object. "Go"
does not give that clue. You somehow assume that the object is
related to "go" through "to", but why not "around" or "near" or
"through" or "under". Why are you so sure it means "to"?
Again, "I go the store" is not very meaningful. The verb "go"
requires a better description of the locative relationship
between the subject and object and the subject's motion.
> It may just point to a similar preposition having
> to be used with the verb in the target language. We have been imbuing Okrand
> with foresight in including prepositions in the definitions, but there's a
> very simple reason why he wouldn't say 'go to', but 'go': 'to' is the default
> preposition built into 'go' in English. 'To go' means 'to go to', by default.
No it doesn't.
Well, maybe it does in Australia, but it doesn't in the United
States, England, Canada or any of the OTHER English speaking
countries on the planet. "I go the store." That makes sense to
you, I guess. "I go my friend." "I go the door." Okay, I'll
stick to "to go". "To go the store is easy." "Can you give me
directions to go the store?"
Don't you notice something missing in those sentences?
> If Okrand *wasn't* imbuing the definitions with information on the case
> structure of verbs, then it would never have occured to him to define jaH as
> 'go to'. And if he wasn't, we wouldn't have really noticed. If he intended
> 'el to be used as XDaq 'el, how could he *not* have defined 'el as "go in"?
This is a good example. It does get me to thinking, though not
to agree with you. It just makes me wonder how he would
indicate it. I suspect he would have noted it as an exception in
the grammar section, just like he noted {ghoS}, and given it a
rather lengthy definition like {ghoS} which might point to this
meaning and useage from several different angles. "cross a
threshold, cross into the boundaries of a location". If you
include the object (not parenthetically), then you can
successfully use a transitive verb to define an intransitive
one, like "experience an earthquake" and "have a headache".
> Understand what I mean here? 'el can mean enter, and still require -Daq, and
> be glossed as 'go in'. It is an entirely possible state.
But it would be a bad gloss, and Okrand has so many other
choices. His canon has not tended to stray from his definitions
in the manner you describe, and there is now enough canon for
this kind of pattern to have arisen, were it his intention.
> Btw, out of curiosity: do you say X chol, or XDaq chol?
XDaq chol. Otherwise the definition would be "close in ON, get
closer TO, come nearer TO".
> > So, you figure you can ignore the actual wording of the
> > definitions of the words, eh? Just throw in a few prepositions
> > wherever you consider them to be convenient.
>
> My dear fellow, what I am trying to do is reconcile the definitions as given
> with a rather broad-ranging rule given in the TKD grammar, and to point out
> that the current assumption on how prepositions are used in the definitions
> should be looked at more circumspectly. Oh, and this business of assuming
> Klingon patterns just like English really gives me the shits, even if it
> looks like it's true. Now, if you think I'm doing this to be capricious,
> that's your problem...
I'm not saying Klingon acts like English. I'm saying that Okrand
chose his words carefully. Why is this so impossible for you to
accept?
> > Why bother with
> > Type 5 noun suffixes AT ALL? Just imply that any verb indicating
> > any kind of motion or direction or location can be stretched to
> > take an object which is locative.
>
> Because the TKD doesn't say "all verbs whose meanings include locative
> notions", but "a few verbs". Next question?
Okay. Why do you think you can pick these few verbs while
disregarding their definitions? The only word he chose to offer
us explicitly in this rule happens to be one where the English
definition quite clearly includes the same kind of relationship
between the verb and its object as the rule describes for the
Klingon word. You don't say, "approach to X". You don't say
{XDaq ghoS}. You say "approach X" and {X ghoS}.
> >> Of course, the langauge might become a little obtuse with all
> >> this stretching to suit your personal preference, and of course,
> >> why bother looking at anything Okrand has written? We can just
> >> make stuff up and as long as WE all decide it is okay, there's
> >> no need to bother the man, right? Whose language IS it ANYWAY,
> >> right?
>
> Don't let's get started on *that* topic again; you've already berated Qov
> about it enough! I am stretching nothing; I am querying how general the TKD
> grammar rule is.
No, you are stating that a specific verb {jaH} fits the rule
according to you and nobody else. I'm disagreeing with this
specific example.
> Canon *seems* to rule out X jaH --- if you can base
> conclusions on two instances. Of course, when the man in question comes up
> with tIv'eghtaH when he is bothered, I'd rather not bother him :-) --- but
> yes, it's unfair to put him on the spot as giving canon on every casual
> e-mail.
While it does seem rather idiomatic, I don't see that as
ungrammatical. X enjoys X. tIv'eghtaH X. I definitely would not
say it that way, but I don't see it as great a leap into
violating the spirit of the vocabulary as transitive use of
{jaH}.
> Still disappointed, though...
Understandably. My hope is that he wrote it tongue in cheek.
> > Ah, I forget that you are psychic. [...]
>
> Oh yeah, and cut the snide crap; it serves only to aggravate your
> interlocutors, and doesn't leave you looking particularly good. And I have
> not been the only recipient of this kind of thing here recently...
My housemate's wife just ran off with another man in Ireland
and I get to listen to his mourning and yearning every evening.
Another friend's ex-lover just came back for a visit and
committed suicide jumping out that friend's window. My own most
intimate relationship recently ended in utter, mutual failure.
These are but a few of a remarkable series of events I've
experienced over the past month or so. I have become rather
impolite. It is futile to direct one's frustrations at Fate and
equally futile to simply avoid expressing anything negative in
such an environment. I do well to avoid strangling household
pets. 'oy'wIj vISIQ.
I will try to become more polite. You might try to be a wee bit
less abrasive and arrogant, yourself. Perhaps we may meet in a
kinder, gentler place.
> >> Now, understand that my own policy all along, too, has been to err on the
> >> side of caution.
> > [charghwI' stares in disbelief, mouth agape]
>
> Oh, Christ on a Crutch, Will! I'm talking about my texts, and the editorial
> policy I follow. I happen to think it's daft, for instance, that 'Ij be
> intransitive, but after SuStel pointed out the controversy, there's no
> transitive 'Ijmey left in the Much Ado text. Mark can readily testify to you
> that I rarely insisted on grammatical forms that had the whiff of controversy
> about them.
I appreciate that. My disbelief is in response to your
occasional pronouncements of somewhat unconventional
interpretations of certain aspects of the language.
I will say that I am quite respectful of your talents. That you
went back and rewrote Shakespeare's Sonnets to clear up the
{-ghach} problem leaves me at least as stunned, staring in
disbelief, in a very respectful way. The quantity and overall
quality of your work is monumental. You wrote the vast majority
of the Hamlet translation, our proudest communal work to date,
and we've all heard stories of your writing major sections of
it, then reconsidering some grammatical point and then rewriting
the entire section, nearly from scratch, several times for the
entire manuscript. Nobody questions your odd genius.
That won't stop me from telling you that your interpretation of
{jaH} is just plain wrong.
> >> But if we bar jaH here, then we'll need canon to justify
> >> the use of direct objects with Dech, 'el, and bav, which you regarded as
> >> so obvious.
> > Except of course for the canon which already exists in the
> > plainly legible and comprehendable definitions in TKD...
>
> Yeah, as clear as "DoH: back away from, back off" (of which the first, by
> your criteria, implies X DoH, and the second Xvo' DoH), or "Haw': flee, get
> out" (not "get out of"!)
I see {DoH} as optionally transitive or intransitive, since each
of these two definitions are not ambiguous, so they must both
apply. We have canon useage as a transitive verb (TKW page 211).
Meanwhile, "flee" can be either transitive or intransitive in
English, while "get out" is intransitive. In this instance, I
wincingly accept the transitive use by others, but will tend to
use it intransitively until I see canon otherwise. Meanwhile,
his canon useage so far is intransitive (TKW page 91).
This is why I go to the trouble of noting his useage of every
verb in every canon source I get my hands on. I see it as the
only way to understand the relationship between these verbs and
their direct objects (if they have one). I find this a more
productive approach than simply theorizing without studying the
specific use of specific verbs. Shortcuts would be convenient,
but I can't trust them.
What I find is that there are indeed patterns. I usually find
that when I have guessed something about the transitivity of
specific verbs, canon fulfills my expectations. I may not have
the technical linguistic vocabulary that you have, and so I may
not impress you with my credentials, but the simple truth is, I
know this language fairly well and I rarely go to great lengths
to express an opinion which subsequently proves to be incorrect.
This is one of those instances where I *am* going to great
lengths to express an opinion, and the odds are quite likely
that if you disagree, you will probably eventually find yourself
to be proven incorrect. I've looked at a lot of verbs as Okrand
has used them. I don't just notice them. I catalog them. The
"New Words" list only shows the notations of those which are not
missing from or substantially redefined outside of TKD. And it
needs updating. I intend to get to that Real Soon Now (tm).
> Problem is, there are also some cases which do like
> the prepositions are doing something extra --- as in nej. The reason why a
> fuss should be kicked about about these verbs, in particular, is that there's
> a TKD grammar rule running around loose, and we don't know how to delimit it.
> You have a theory on how to delimit it; all I can say is, the more I look at
> it, the less I know...
I'll admit that until you brought this up, I didn't try to
formulate a method for interpreting this. I was not looking at
the prepositional relationship between the verb and its direct
object IN ENGLISH until I tried to answer what I thought was a
misinterpretation of that boundary (jaH) with examples that did
seem naturally to fit that rule.
Many things like this in Klingon strike me as a mirror for
English. I would never have noticed the noun-centricity of
English without the verb-centricity of Klingon. I would not have
noticed the way many English verbs (like "approach") have
implied prepositions linking them to their direct objects if not
for this rule in Klingon. I would not have noticed the vagueness
in the difference between relative pronouns and question words
were it not for the way people keep trying to use questions as
objects of other verbs.
There is a dance between English and Klingon. They are not
merely two specimens in a petri dish. Each is a lense for
observing the other, with chromatic filters which highlight
otherwise invisible blemishes and decorative features. Much of
what is Klingon was chosen from other languages specifically as
a contrast or as a point of interest for the relationship
between these two langauges.
One is weak where the other is strong. One is vague where the
other is specific. They exchange roles when the lense approaches
various features of that stuff through which we communicate.
Okrand has taught me things about English I never would have
noticed in the study of any other language. I think that has
been the sticking point for me; the reason that for all the
languages I've meant to get around to learning, this is the one
I do best. I keep hoping I'll eventually get a grip on ASL or
Cherokee or even one of the western European languages. There
are certainly enough materials available and I do pick up
words...
But here I am, speaking Klingon... A cosmic joke.
> > There are ambiguous definitions, like {vIH}, but {jaH} and
> > {ghoS} are not ambiguous in terms of which one includes locative
> > (prepositional) concepts and which one doesn't. {ghoS} clearly
> > does. {jaH} clearly doesn't.
>
> *Epiphany* Oh! Now I get it! You reckon a verb includes a locative concept if
> it has a *preposition* in the English definition! Whereas, fool that I was, I
> thought it included a locative concept if it had a locative complement
> (which, in English, can be a direct object --- or not, but does have to be
> implicit in all occurences of the verb.)
I reckon that a well chosen word or phrase in one langauge can
be applied to define a word in another language in order to help
the user know what kind of noun can make an appropriate direct
object. I'm also assuming that Okrand has made that kind
of careful choice in most of his definitions. That's pretty much
the beginning and ending of my assumption.
> This is what you were yelling is right there in front of me? *Interesting*
> way of looking at it, but I... Well, OK, I won't say anything snide; but we
> obviously aren't talking in the same terms.
Obviously.
> >> If we can truly be sure of nothing but
> >> ghoS taking direct objects, then "yuQ vIbav" can no longer be considered
> >> acceptable. (And I must say, I have problems with that use of bav anyway.)
> > How exactly DO you use {bav}? I'm dying to see.
>
> In Hamlet? yuQ vIbav. But what do I think the safest way to use it is? yuQDaq
> jIbav, of course. What's opaque about that?
Even the rule in question allows this second interpretation,
though like the rule says (and like the English "orbit" behaves)
the more natural sounding expression is {yuQ vIbav}.
> >> There is nothing (*nothing*) natural about following a course being direct
> >> objects, and going to locations not.
> > Except of course that in your own words right there you say,
> > "following a course" (the preposition is implied in the verb)
> > and "going TO locations" (the preposition needs to be explicit
> > because the verb does not imply it). Let me introduce you to the
> > helpful preposition.
>
> Let me introduce *you*, my friend, to the fact that I happen to be speaking
> English right now. Duh! Now let's try that sentence in Esperanto:
>
> Estas nenio (*nenio*) natura pri tio, ke direktigxi laux kurso necesigas
> direktan objekton, sed iri lokojn ne.
>
> How very odd! Following the course came out with a preposition, but the
> locations didn't!
Too bad the definitions are not in Esperanto. I suspect Okrand
would have chosen words in that language which would agree with
the English translation.
> Don't argue on the basis of English: you are not Proechel. Argue on the basis
> of TKD alone. And remember that you can't import the full baggage of a
> definitional word into Klingon: that's how 'pong' can end up meaning
> 'phone-call'...
True, but to answer questions like these, looking at the canon
which does exist helps a lot. It is not always available and not
always comprehensive, but it tells me more than all the
interviews and pronouncements from Okrand, simply because there
is more of it. He addresses more verbs in canon than anywhere
else beyond the word list itself. Seeing the relationship
between canon useage and the TKD definitions is likely to be the
only way we resolve those definitions which are too vague. We
are left with some useless verbs (like "be at a negative angle")
and we can never be sure about some others, but overall, this is
the only way I can see learning the finer points of expression.
> >> The English rendering is not
> >> decisive, because there isn't a word for "go" in English which *could*
> > take a direct object.
> > THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. IF HE WANTED TO DEFINE IT IN SUCH A
> > WAY THAT IT MEANT "GO TO" HE WOULD HAVE USED "APPROACH" INSTEAD
> > OF "GO".. HE CHOSE "GO" BECAUSE {jaH} DOES NOT INCLUDE
> > LOCATIVE/PREPOSITIONAL ASSOCIATION WITH A DIRECT OBJECT.
>
> The shouting just proves you're not listening. 'Approach' doesn't mean 'go'
> at all; it's a much restricted meaning.
Restricted by the locative notion implied by it. "Approach" is
anchored to its destination in a way "go" is not. That is why
you don't need the preposition "to" with "approach", but you do
need it with "go". "Approach the bench." "Go to the bench."
"Approach to the bench." "Go the bench."
> Have another look at your dictionary.
> There is no English verb which means 'go' *really* means 'go', as in
> unmarked verb of motion), and that could take a direct object.
Exactly. That is what makes "go" a good choice for translating a
verb describing unmarked motion which cannot take an object. I'm
assuming that Okrand intentionally made that good choice.
> As for 'go to'
> being the alternative, the fact that 'to' *never* shows up in one of these
> verb+preposition couplings has me worried, and should have you worried too.
If I see it in such a setting and it violates my expectations,
I'll rebuild my model. This has not yet happened. On this list,
people have used {qajatlh} for as long as I can remember and it
always bothered me. More recent canon shows that it is almost
certainly incorrect, since the person addressed was a noun with
{-vaD}. This is specific to the verb {jatlh}, since other verbs
of speech ({ja'}, {tlhob} and {jang}) do use the person
addressed as the direct object. {jatlh} has been used either
intransitively, or with {Hol} as a direct object. No other
direct object has been used with it. Meanwhile, the English
translations of these words fit this same pattern, if you take
the single interpretation that a quotation is never
grammatically related to a verb of speech. There are no canon
examples where the quotation is the object of the verb of
speech, which explains why verbs of quotation doesn't use {'e'}.
> And no linguist can ever in good conscious write a dictionary without the
> word 'go' (just 'go', whatever the language actually does) in it: it's how
> they're trained. Okrand could not but have defined jaH as 'go': it doesn't
> prove the TKD grammar rule doesn't apply.
I'd need some kind of canon to reinforce this presumption. It
sounds weak.
> >> As for me, I can't see anything less "abstract" about bav
> >> being transitive than ghoS; and 'locative' is a superset of 'directional'
> >> --- I was, if anything, being more conservative than the wording allows,
> >> not less.
> > Yet, you were being completely fictional in your choice of which
> > verbs you chose to apply this concept to.
>
> *sigh* Ah yes, the utter fiction of 'go' being a locative verb...
The fictional part is that the direct object of "go" exists and
is related to the verb through a specific prepositional concept.
The versatility of "go" as an intransitive verb is that it can
be used with almost any preposition meaningfully. You go in,
over, under, out, to, from, through, around, onto, off of, ... A
direct object would need one of these to relate it to the verb,
and with "go" there is no dominant preposition. You assume "to",
and that is the part I really can't understand. Why do you think
"to" is more implicit in "go" than any other preposition? Verbs
which imply this kind of locative relationship with their direct
objects have a dominant preposition which is implied in the
verb. "Go" has no such dominant preposition. Your choice of "to"
is completely arbitrary.
> I'm not sure what we've learnt from this; here's my putative summary:
>
> 1. You should chill out.
> 2. I should chill out.
> 3. Okrand's gone and done it again.
> 4. The Esperanto/Lojban substrate in Klingon (Mark & Nick) looks like getting
> struck down again.
> 5. You think prepositions signal locativity, and there is no issue.
> 6. I think prepositions are there because that's the way English came out of
> the oven, and there is an issue.
My issue is word choice. English has a lot more words than
Klingon. If one word fails to map to a Klingon word, then an
English phrase will map better, somehow showing the difference
between the bare English word and the Klingon word. Most of the
time, the reason for the failure to map a single English word to
a Klingon word, requiring a phrase, is the phrase can point to a
different direct object than the lone English word would have
indicated.
Experience an earthquake
Have a headache.
care (about), be concerned (about)
care for, take care of
concentrate on, focus on, think only about
...
> > Hamlet has {jaH} as a transitive verb?
> > Say it isn't so! It looks so -- gasp -- so FOOLISH.
>
> Yeah, well, you should have said something two years ago, shouldn't you. Mark
> made a judgement call at the time; now, he probably wouldn't make the same
> call now (though I'd love to hear what he thinks about this.) There's nothing
> foolish about interpreting something as sloppy as TKD in different ways and
> trying to make sense of it. What would be foolish is insisting once an error
> is proven. But at the risk of appearing foolish :-) , I'm still not
> convinced, for the reasons I've outlined.
We are all foolish at times. My own folly is far from invisible
to my eyes. I wish I had proven more effective in the making of
Hamlet. When roles were assigned, I was assigned to edit
Guido#1's text. He and I were unable to work together, since it
became clear that I saw my job as an editor while he saw it as a
rubber stamp. I do not recall him accepting a single syllable of
modification to his original text, so I withdrew from the
project, since I was ineffective. We did not discuss his text as
anything near peers. He defended every word as if one touch
would destroy the balance of the entire work.
~mark decided that the work would be more consistent if it had
only one editor. He did remarkably good work, as did you and
Guido, even if you did include {jaH} as a transitive verb...
> Nick NICHOLAS, PhD candidate, Dept. of Linguistics, Univ. of Melbourne
charghwI'