tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 05 13:52:12 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lopno' - looking for general comment
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: lopno' - looking for general comment
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 00:17:52 -0400
From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
>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.
Aha! I've suddenly realized why I don't like this approach!
It doesn't work that way!
At least, it doesn't for me. I have no problem parsing {-lu'}. It's no
different than parsing any subject. I also don't have any trouble parsing
relative clauses attached to the far side of Type 5'd nouns. Here's why:
I digest conversation in phrases, not words or syllables or elements.
For instance, if someone said to me {qachDaq vIchenmoHpu'bogh jIQam}, I
wouldn't digest
(1) qach
(2) qachDaq
(3) qachDaq vI-
etc.
I'd hear all of {qachDaq vIchenmoHpu'bogh} first. I'd notice {qach} and
think of a building, but {-Daq} wouldn't even register as a specific thing.
I'd just have a sense of "locative."
Next would come the supposedly tricky part, {vIchenmoHpu'bogh}. I don't
really have any problem with verb suffixes; when someone says a Klingon verb
to me, I simply know what they means without even realizing which suffixes
I've listened to (rather like {-Daq}, above). I have a sense of "which I
have done" (the verb prefix always ties in very closely in my brain with the
suffixes) and a sense of "caused this to happen." The only thing I have to
actually think about is the meaning of the verb itself. In the case of a
common verb, like {chen}, I don't even have to think about that.
Now, my example sentence is not ambiguous, but you will get turned around if
you try to digest it one element at a time. Fortunately, we usually speak
in phrases, and relative clauses are usually very closely associated with
their head noun. I cannot, of course, say that this is how it is with
*Klingons*, but I know it's how it works with humans speaking Klingon, and
they phrase things. So, you get a subconscious cue as to when the phrase
ends.
It is at this point that I'll actually deduce the meaning of {qachDaq
vIchenmoHpu'bogh} in its entirety. The process goes like this, and in these
steps (with no intervening steps):
(1) qachDaq -- "In the building."
(2) vIchenmoHpu'bogh -- "In the building which I have made."
There are no conscious steps besides these. The verb is not broken down in
my mind.
Finally, comes the main verb: {jIQam}. No problem there. One step:
comprehension. {jI-} is a commonly used prefix, so there's no problem
there.
In fact, I found that at qep'a' vaghDIch whenever I didn't know a vocabulary
word someone had used, I could often discover the meaning simply by
comparing the context and the verb affixes. Since I didn't have to think
about the affixes, I looked to see what sort of meaning needed to be put in
the blank, and I figured it out.
All of this is to show why I don't particularly agree with the "one element
at a time" analysis of Klingon. I don't think language is processed that
way in the brain. I don't know how it *does* work, but I'd bet there's a
buffer somewhere which saves things you hear until you get enough of it so
that you can then work on it.
>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'/.
It works according to strict interpretation of the "prefix trick" which
we've been given. Whether it's actually allowed is another story.
>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>/?
This would appear to be so, again, according to a strict interpretation of
the rules.
>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.
One possibility is that if there *is* an object on a verb whose prefix
doesn't match it, then you *must* be employing the prefix trick.
What worries me more is using the prefix trick on verbs of quality:
qalI'
I am useful to you.
Ick.
Strict interpretation would seem to allow it. Common sense does not.
>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?
It's icky, but there's no evidence either way. I sure hope it's not allowed
normally.
SuStel
Stardate 98593.2