tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 19 09:17:04 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: thursday:today
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 07:01:12 -0700
>From: "Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen" <[email protected]>
>Will wrote:
>>
>> jIQoch. lugh ~mark. bIQaghpu'. <ghaH> poQbe'lu', 'ach
>> <ghaH'e'> poQbe'bejlu'.
>But which part do you disagree with?
>I think we're all in agreement that <ghaH> wasn't "required" at all, though I
>hope we're also all in agreement that it helps disambiguate this sentence from
>the larger context of the post as a whole, likewise the use of -'e' for
>topicalization. Or is this the part that you believe I am mistaken about?
>One area which I think has received very little attention (for obvious reasons)
>is that any language, not simply Klingon, can and should be analyzed at several
>levels. We've become pretty good at looking at Klingon at the "word" level, and
>indeed, most of what we do is at that level. We're getting better understanding
>the language at the "sentence" or "phrase" level, and as we gather more
>canonical sentences from sources like THE KLINGON WAY this should only improve.
>But language also needs to be studied at a still larger level, the level of
>extended discourse. How do the sentence fit together, issues like cohesion and
>reference, maintaining topic between conversants, and a general appreciation for
>context at a higher level.
>I'm not trying to "bullshit" my way out of a corner, but I am asking you to look
>at the whole picture.
I dunno, Lawrence... Sounds like it passes the duck test for bullshit to
me. :)
In fact, the arguments against "ghaH'e'" here really all HAVE been on the
higher level, the pragmatic/discourse level you're talking about. There's
no denying that "ghaH" is not required... but there's also no denying that
it's permitted. The question is, is it appropriate from a pragmatic
perspective. That's the "big picture" you want us to look at: does the
sentence work at the level of a whole sentence, in the context of
discourse? The fact that it's grammatical in isolation isn't at issue
here.
Adding the "ghaH'e'" as you did emphasizes the subject, according to TKD.
- From what Okrand has told us, generally -'e' functions as a focus marker
(tho it's erroneously labeled a topic marker) when attached to a noun.
That means it emphasizes something as new information: jIluj jIH'e': it was
*I* who failed, not someone else. The failure is not at issue, and is not
being questioned; the sentence's main point is *who* was the one that did
it. I know there have been a few questions as to some cases where -'e'
seesm to be a topic marker (As for me, I failed), but so far as I know the
official meaning is focus.
So, in the context in question, we're talking about a story. The story is
introduced in the first two sentences as being irrelevant to the
discussion. So now the third sentence comes to question why the teller
chose to tell it. What the attention is really on is the telling: we don't
really care who it was that told it, what we're asking about is the actual
act of telling: why'd it take place? "This story is irrelevant. Why was
it HE that told it?" doesn't work in context. It implies that the story
probably should have been told, but I'm surprised that this person told it
and not another. If you take -'e' as a topic marker, there MAY be some
justification: The story is irrelevant. As for him, the teller, why'd he
tell it? Even so, that still calls attention to the teller, who really is
sort of peripheral to the question. What really matters is the *telling*.
It doesn't really matter who did it. And -'e' is generally known to be
focus anyway.
Does that answer things closer to the level you wanted to explore?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMcgn88ppGeTJXWZ9AQEbAwL/dgfEFro9lM1W/YN7iKXRtwwADMPMFNeU
mz4a+rdEsV8l/43mI6TCrrguDVySq3xLC5H7TRkhAH30DjSlGXQHaWxwGMfSOYtr
qE4wnWmnkMcn7yL4bGxa20tpp6bAW/YB
=wGUH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----