tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 19 15:30:41 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: names and "to be" again (was Re: KLBC)

On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ja' charghwI':
> >bIghoHchu'lI', jupwI'. Meanwhile, there is an angle to this that
> >you may not have considered. Perhaps it is merely arbitrary that
> >we do not apply definite or indefinite articles to names in
> >English. What is different about a name that it is not correct
> >to say, "My name is the Alan."
> 
> I *have* considered this angle, and I have rejected it.  In English, as
> in many other languages, names often *do* get articles before them, but
> only when talking about the thing that the name refers to.  One doesn't
> add an article when talking about the name itself (unless the article is
> actually part of the name, as in "The Shining" or "La Giocanda"--but it
> isn't *adding* one even then).

It doesn't sound much like you really HAVE considered what I 
suggested. Perhaps you considered something NEARLY LIKE what I 
suggested, but we don't really seem to be talking about quite 
the same thing.

"Perhaps it is merely arbitrary that we do not apply definite or 
indefinite articles to names in English." You answer that by 
explaining, "One doesn't add an article when talking about the 
name itself." So? I wasn't arguing about that.

Your argument seems based upon two apparent observations:

1. The normal use of proper names does not include an article 
(definite or indefinite). [That's "the" or "a" to the 
grammatically uninitiated.)

2. In the "to be" sentences that you can think of, especially 
going by the Klingon examples we have, the object of the verb 
"to be" in English does take a definite article or an indefinite 
article, or the Klingon noun uses a Type 4 suffix (which 
identifies the noun as we would do with a possessive pronoun or 
helper words like "this" and "that").

Therefore, since the proper names don't have a Type 4 suffix in 
Klingon and they don't have an article in English, and 
people are trying to use these special nouns as objects of "to 
be", then something is wrong and this should not happen.

I think to understand all this better, we should look harder at 
what kind of nouns have articles and which ones don't. I think 
you are wrong in your assertion that it has anything to do with 
being a subject or object in a "to be" sentence.

My own belief (newly polished by the need to respond to your 
excellent stubbornness) is that similar to the way Klingon 
language is tweaked in order to establish degree of certainty in 
verbs (Type 6 suffix) and nouns (Type 3 Suffix) to a degree that 
English does not, English is cranked to establish the degree of 
identification of nouns. We either talk about nouns which are 
indefinite ("a hammer, a table) or definite ("the hammer, the 
table")

"A hammer is on a table." We don't know which hammer or which 
table. This is a very generic, vague statement.

"The hammer is on the table." We are only considering a specific 
hammer and a specific table.

Meanwhile, this establishing of specific identity can also be 
served by possessive pronouns in English (paralleling Type 3 
Klingon noun suffixes):

"My hammer is on the table." We are only considering a specific 
hammer and a specific table.

"My hammer is on his table." We are only considering a specific 
hammer and a specific table.

Proper names also identify nouns. We don't need articles to 
specify the degree of identity for nouns preceeded by possessive 
pronouns and we don't need articles in front of names. We also 
don't need articles in front of plain old pronouns. *"The I am a 
Klingon."* We already know there is only one "I", so we don't 
need anything else to express that the identity is certain.

If I say, with no context, "He is waiting for you," you might 
feel like I worded things badly because I didn't tell you who 
"he" is. This would cause pretty much the same kind of discord 
that you would feel if I answered your, "Where is my hammer?" 
with "A hammer is on the table." Your naturally angry answer 
would be "WHICH hammer is on the table? I want MY hammer!" My 
answer was not definite enough. Similarly, "WHO is waiting for 
me?" is a naturally angry answer because using the pronoun "he" 
is supposed to be reserved for references to people for whom we 
already have some form of identity assured.

For "he" to be a good word choice, you need to already know who 
"he" is, since when I say, "He is waiting for you," what I'm 
REALLY saying is closer to saying "The X is waiting for you," 
than it is to saying, "An X is waiting for you." There is only 
one "he". That's the "he" that is waiting for you. It deserves 
"the" in front of it, but since any pronoun ALWAYS deserves "the"
instead of "a" since it is ALWAYS a definite (as in "identified")
noun, we don't bother using the definite article in front of it. 
In fact, we NEVER use any article in front of it at all.

Now, THERE'S a coincidence! In examples like "I am a Klingon," 
the "to be" verb is represented by a pronoun, which doesn't need 
an article in English. Meanwhile, if there is an explicit 
subject in a "to be" sentence in Klingon, in English we don't 
use the pronoun any more, so your average subject begins to need 
an article again.

So, perhaps your attention has been diverted focussing on 
whether the object needed an article by the fact that subjects 
fall under the same rule, and the presence or absence of 
articles has nothing to do with whether it is subject or object 
and instead has to do with whether the noun is a proper name, a 
pronoun or it preceeded by a possessive pronoun.

"The captain is a Klingon."

Now, both the subject and the object have articles. Now, let's 
put a name in it:

Krankor is a Klingon.

The captain is Krankor.

The presence or absence of an article has everything to do with 
names and nothing to do with what is subject or object.

Now, it would be a bit odd to say, "A Klingon is Krankor," 
because in that case, we are talking about the member/set 
function of the "to be" verb. Meanwhile, "Krankor is the 
captain," and "The captain is Krankor," are both equally valid 
sentences, much like "My name is Alan," and "Allen is my name," 
because there is exactly one thing which is "my name" and there 
is one thing which is "Alan". Neither is a subset of the other. 
They are equal in what they are identifying.

I thank you for bringing me to this point of clarifying my ideas 
about how this works. Had you been less stubborn, I would have 
remained more vague.

Meanwhile, if you wish to extend your stubbornness even further, 
please address this more explicitly explained perspective. Also, 
if you simply believe that *I* am stubborn and incorrect, please 
point out to me the flaw in my logic or the incorrect premise 
upon which it is built.

> >Or what if there is a whole room
> >full of people named Alan. Let's say it is an Alan convention.
> >Someone asks what your name is and you say, "My name is an
> >Allen."
> 
> No, I wouldn't say that.  As soon as I say "my name is" something, that
> something is going to be either a name or something that describes names.

No. "My name is" doesn't make any difference here at all. What 
makes the difference is that names don't get articles placed in 
front of them for the same reason that pronouns don't get them 
and the same reason that nouns identified by possessive 
pronouns or possessive proper nouns don't need them. The degree 
to which we are being definite about a noun is already 
established, so we don't need to set this degree of certainty 
about identifying a specific noun as we do with definite or 
indefinite articles.

> [It might be an adjective like "common" or "hard to spell", for example.]

"My name is a verb." As "Will" I can say that.

"My name is a common word."

"My name is a statement of intent."

"My name is a single syllable."

"My name is the thing I call myself."

"My name is the least important thing about me."

"My name is a difficult sound to make for person's of oriental 
first language."

"My name is the password to my ship's self-destruct system."

"My name is my father's name."

"My name is this collection of phonemes."

"My name is that shape on a page."

"My name is..." Need I go on? Starting with "My name is..." has 
nothing to do with whether or not the object will have an 
article in front of it. The object of that sentence will need or 
not need an article depending solely upon whether in any other 
context that same noun (with any Type 4 equivalents or 
noun-noun possessives still attached) would need an article.

> "An Allen" (or "an Alan") describes a *person*, not a name.  I don't think
> I'm being unreasonably pedantic about this.

No. You are simply being inaccurate. At least you are not being 
approximate!

It is not so much that you have missed a target. It is that 
you have missed THE target because you took aim at some OTHER 
target, fooled by a similarity between the two. Whatever the 
case, the true target has not yet been hit by you.

> >It sounds strange to us because by convention, we don't put
> >articles in front of proper names, but that's not always the
> >case in all languages. La Paris, par example.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, one might call the city itself "La Paris",
> but the name is always just "Paris".  I welcome corrections from anyone
> with more authoritative knowledge than mine.

I'm just starting to get back into French and I have little 
certainty this was a useful diversion.
 
> >So, what if the problem you are having is not with there being
> >something peculiar about having someone's name be the object of
> >the verb "to be", but instead is a quirk of English that we
> >don't put articles in front of proper names?
> 
> I'm not complaining about putting articles in front of proper names when
> those names are being *used*.  I deal with {torgh jIH} fine, for example;
> whatever objections I have to it are merely a matter of style, not grammar.
> But when a name is being defined or given or identified, I still feel it
> is syntactically wrong to use it as the object of a "to be" verb.  *I* am
> an Alan; my name is not.

Just to hammer this home, articles have a function in English. 

We have grown accustomed to having this function serviced in our 
use of the language. The function is to identify whether we are 
talking about a random member of a set, or if we are talking 
about a specific member of a set or of a specific entity. If we 
are speaking about a member of a set with no specificity, we use 
the indefinite article. If we are talking about a specific 
entity, we either use a definite article, or we use a special 
kind of noun that already implies this same kind of assurance 
that we are speaking about a specific entity.

Proper names speak about a specific entity. "Alan" 
doesn't need an article. 

Pronouns, since they replace proper names ("Alan is out to 
lunch. He will be right back.") or relative clauses (The guy 
who was looking for you earlier showed up again. He left a 
message.), or otherwise context-identified entities, speak about 
a specific entity. "He" doesn't need an article because "Alan" 
doesn't need an article. "His argument" (-Daj, -wIj, -lIj, etc.) 
doesn't need an article because "Alan's argument" doesn't need 
an article. Meanwhile, generally speaking, an argument needs an 
article until that argument (-vam, -vetlh) is identified in some 
way. None of this has anything to do with something being 
subject or object of a "to be" sentence.

> >Consider other nouns we don't use articles on, like abstract
> >nouns. "Your problem is congestion." We would not say, "Your
> >problem is a congestion." Do you argue that we must always say
> >this as "Congestion is your problem."?
> 
> First, "is" works fine to indicate equivalence *in English*.  

Okay, then how do we *in Klingon* express equivalence, if not 
with pronouns in a "to be" construction? Do tell.

> Second, the
> "your problem is a congestion" phrasing doesn't sound wrong to me anyway.
> Make it "your disease is mumps" in Klingon instead, and I'm indeed going
> to want it to be said {roplIj 'oH "mumps"-'e'}.

Except for your probably incorrect misobservation about 
articles, could you please explain why?
 
> >When I say {tlhIngan jIH,} I'm saying that I (the subject) am a
> >subset of Klingons (the object). When I say, "Congestion is your
> >problem," I'm not saying that "Congestion" (the subject) is a
> >subset of "your problem" (the object). Similarly, "Alan" is not
> >a subset of "my name".
> 
> I agree completely with the intent of what you are saying.  The difference
> between equivalence and categorization/subsetting is quite obvious -- and
> that difference is exactly the problem I have for using the {tlhIngan jIH}
> phrasing for the equivalence idea.

You still have not suggested how to express equivalence. You 
just express how offended you are that others try to use 
pronouns in the "to be" construction in order to do so. Do you 
have some other means of doing this that you have simply 
forgotten to share with us?

For years now?
 
> >I argue that both Klingon pronouns and the verb "to be"
> >sometimes indicate equivalents and sometimes indicate subsets.
> >When it indicates a subset, then the subject is the subset and
> >the object is the larger set. When it indicates equivalents,
> >then the subject and object are reversable.
> 
> *If* a pronoun as "to be" indicates equivalents, the subject and object are
> referring to the same thing and are certainly interchangable.  I'm not yet
> convinced that it can (or should be able to) do so.

Okay. So, how else DO we do it? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
> >Your observation
> >about articles is an arbitrary quirk of English that has nothing
> >to do with the grammar.
> 
> My observation about articles was intended to point out that in each of the
> examples I looked at of a pronoun used as "to be", it was either an obvious
> "subset" usage or one that could be interpreted as one.  None of them is a
> clear contradiction of my interpretation of {'oH} as "is a".
> 
> charghwI', you were quite outspoken and passionate when you argued against
> trying to translate directly a "what weapon do you want?" type of question.
> I've got a similar thing going with the "my name is Alan" type of statement.

I respect your right to be passionate about this stuff, but I do 
see one significant difference between the example of my "Which 
weapon do you want?" and your "Alan is my name." I was telling 
people, "There are problems with the way you guys are trying to 
express this question, but you can avoid all those problems if 
you change it to a command for others to choose." You are 
telling us, "There is a problem with your trying to express 
equivalents through pronoun/"to be" expressions." You don't 
offer any suggestions on how else to express this.

That's the force that drives me as passionately this time to 
object to your objection. You are not trying to expand on the 
expressive capabilities of the Klingon language without breaking 
any rules or making up stuff for which we have no rules. 
Instead, you are just attempting to constrict the expressive 
abilities of the language. You are not recasting equivalence 
using some other grammatical tool that suits the purpose better. 
You are instead simply disallowing equivalence to be expressed 
at all, and going on as if this did not create a problem.

I'll leave it to the Canon Master to dredge up "to be" examples 
that are expressions of equivalents rather than member/set 
expressions. I'll be seriously disappointed if by random chance 
Okrand has not provided any examples of this useage, since he 
has given us no description to avoid this very easy "error" of 
extending the use of pronouns beyond their original design.
 
> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level