tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 04 15:29:34 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: lopno' - looking for general comment

I've taken this out of the KLBC as I invite others with a feel for the
language to help me with a problem I haven't seen before.

---Christiane Scharf  wrote:
> ja' Qov:
> > ---Christiane Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > jang Qov:
> > > > ---Christiane Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > qaSpa' lopno' not jupvam vISuchpu'. juHDaj Daq
> > > > > vIDellu'.
> > > >
> > > > DoSlIj vIlegh 'ej bIpabHa'chu' jIjatlhlaHbe', 'ach mIwvetlh
> > > > vIchupbe'.
> > > > <jIHvaD juHDaj Daq Dellu'> yIjatlh.  mIwvam nap law' mIwlij 
> > > > nap puS.
> > >
> > > qatlh? Why is this simpler? After all, my version is even shorter.
> >
> > Ok, reasons.
> > 1. It's true that a verb prefix can refer to a first or second
person
> > indirect object instead of a direct object, but when you already
have
> > /-lu'/ reversing the prefix anyway, it's dubious.
> 
> {-lu'} is dubious in any case. 

Why do you say that?  Why did you write it if it was dubious?

> However, if the prefix indicates a first
> person object and there is an additional third person object before
the
> verb, the relations are clear, aren't they?

Not at once, and not as clear as it could be.
 
> > 2. /juHDajDaq vIDellu'/ means 'I was described at her house' and 
> > the only difference is the space, or a slight stress difference
when 
> > spoken.
> 
> True, but when written down, the difference is obvious.
> (I'd probably not manage to construct something with {-lu'} when 
> talking...)

I guess you have neater handwriting and non-proportional fonts.  I
wouldn't call a difference that consisted only of a space "obvious." 
And anything written down can be read aloud.

> > 3. Usually the verbs where the 'prefix trick' is used are the ones
> > where the literal interpretation sounds funny anyway.  So /HInob/ is
> > likely to be interbreted as "give it to me" while /HIDel/ without
> > context obviously means "describe me."
> 
> But the third person direct object comes first, anyway. So the first 
> person prefix must refer to the indirect object, right?

Well yes, if this construction is allowed at all, but grammar
shouldn't be something you have to figure out by process of
elimination. Given that you were using the indefinite subject and the
apparent object didn't match the prefix, then the object had to be jIH
and what's left the indirect object.  It *was* a process of
elimination.  I don't count the fact that I figure something out as a
heavy vote for its validity.  

> > 4. You have to wait until the final syllable of the entence before
> > knowing what word plays what role in the sentence.
> 
> You always have to wait for the final syllable in a {-lu'} sentence.

You always have to wait for the final syllable in any sentence, but
it's easier if you can do much of the processing as you go along. 
Else you run out of RAM and get an overflow error in your head.
 
> This probably looks like I love arguing, but I just want
clarification.

Not a problem. If I don't have to explain things in intimate detail I
don't learn much from doing it.  If new people didn't come along and
argue for new things we wouldn't make nearly as much progress as we
have. 

This is to clarify what I mean by waiting until the last syllable:

Here's your sentence, processed in the order you recive the syllables.
juHDaq Daq - her house's place -- her address
vI- - I did something to her address
vIDel - I described her address
vIDellu' - I was described ... wait a moment ... now the object of the
sentence must be /jIH/, so what does that thing in the object position
do?  Before I can understand the sentence I have to go back and change
what I've already parsed about it.

My sentence:
jIH - me
jIHvaD - for me, to me
juHDaj Daq - her house's place, her address, something was done to it
for me
Del -  someone described it for me
Dellu' - and the describer is not specified.

At no point in the reading or hearing of this second sentence do I
have to back up and re-evaluate everything I've already heard.

The crux of this is:  I know that /jIHvaD juHDaj Dellu'/ obeys the
rules of Klingon.  I don't know that the prefix trick works with
/-lu'/.  The two sentences having identical meanings, I choose the one
that is more likely to be correct.  As I said in my original response,
I can't say that your way breaks rules, but I don't recommend it.

Here is are two issues I invite genreral comment on:

1. Can *any* verb that could be used with /jIHvaD vay' <verb>/ also be
used with /vay' HI<verb>/?

taj HInob
chovnatlh HI'ang
qagh ghovut
mIw qaDel
ra'wI' SarI'
targh nuje'

I'm not all that comfortable with the latter ones on the list, because
the reasonable meanings of isolated /qaDel/ /SarI'/ and /nuje'/ hold
my attention.  I'm going to stay with my argument that the prefix
trick works best with verbs where the direct object is rarely the
first or second person.  This is in line with the fact that the prefix
trick doesn't work/isn't used with a third person indirect object,
even though */tajmey wInob/ would be unambiguous for /ghaHvaD tajmey
DInob/.

2. Can the "prefix trick" of using a verb prefix to refer to the
indirect object instead of the direct object also be used when the
prefix has already been reversed with /-lu'/.

taj vInoblu'
voDleH lIngta' Dajablu'
De' bomuchlu'

Again I'm uncomfortable with the easily understood verbs not meaning
what they seem to.  When one and two are combined I don't like it at
all.  Opinions and arguments?


> > > chupta'ghachlIj cha'DIch vIparHa'. (I think I've used {-ghach}
for the
> > > first time here... chollaw' Seng)
> >
> > Shrug.  I would have said /qechlIj cha'DIch/, and would translate
> > /chupta'ghachlIj/ first as "your having suggested it" or something,
> > referring to the act.  That's me.  I have no idea what a Klingon 
>  > would say.
> 
> No comment.

That being an explicit 'no comment' I'll explain myself more.  
/-ghach/ seems to nominalize the action it's attached to, but not so
much to make the verb a noun, but the verb + suffix a noun.  The
suffix on /chup/ being /ta'/, the noun appears to refer to the
deliberate accomplishment of suggesting. As /nobHa'ghach/ isn't a
commendation that's undone, but rather the discommendation, and
/QublaHghach/ is the "ability to think" not "a thought that can be," I
read /chupta'/ as "having suggested" and not "a suggestion that's
complete."  

> > You're right.  ghom is singular.  I read the first sentence as
> > correct, then cached its subject in my head as "they" instead of
"it."
> >  DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
> 
> Wow! I caught Qov making an error. I'll mark the day in my calendar.

You'll need a bigger calendar soon. I was talking to Captain Krankor
recently: The conversation began with me "hipchecking" him. I don't
remember the exact words, but part went something like this:

Qov: qaStaHvIS wa' DIS BG jIHtaH.  tugh jIpaj.
Qanqor: bIpaj net chaw'pa' DujeynIS ghojwI'.
Qov: mujeynIS'a' ghojwI'wI''e'?  chay' mujeynIS? Qagh vItu'be'bogh
tu'nIS'a'?  pIj qaS.
Qanqor: chaq.  qoj Dutojchu'nIS qoj Du*hipcheck*chu'nIS ...

==

Qov - Beginners' Grammarian

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Back to archive top level