tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 29 17:22:07 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:35:23 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:56:02 +0100 Matt Johnson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> William H. Martin <[email protected]> writes
> >On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:00:38 +0100 Matt Johnson
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [ ?*{latlh He wIlo'moH DaH} ]
>
> >> >Okay, first, this is controversial grammar. I'm comfortable with
> >> >it, but some others object.
> ...
> >> Maybe {DaHvaD latlh He wIlo'moH} might parse better... this states
> >> explicitly the indirect object (the benefactor of the action, in this
> >> case the network/array), and removes the ambiguity of the second
> >> unstated object in the original sentence. Now, the sentence is "We
> >> caused the network to use a new cable."
> >
> >That works, if you accept the same controversial grammar that I
> >accept. We have one canon example of this being used and many
> >respectable Klingonists object to it and think it is a mistake.
>
> :-| In which case, I'm not sure how to cast it at all.
Welcome to the world as we knew it before the one controversial
example.
> Maybe it doesn't cast properly in one sentence, or we can't cast it
> 'explicitly'.
You are getting warmer.
> {latlh He poQ DaH. latlh He wIjom.} appears less controversial to me.
Exactly. Well done. I suspect we are often tempted to overuse
{-moH} stretching it beyond its original intent. There are
places where it works perfectly, but there is often temptation
to use it where simpler constructions in multiple sentences, as
you just displayed, really work better.
> Thinking about the 'interesting' {DaHvaD latlh He wIlo'moH}... pulled
> out TKD, page 38. TKD says that {HIQoymoH} can be interpreted both as
> "Let me hear!" or "Let me hear (something)!" The first translation is
> fine, the second seems 'odd' because the prefix seems to be relating to
> subject and benefactor (indirect object) instead of direct object, and
> we aren't told how to specify "something". As I understand it, the only
> way we have to mark an indirect object is with -vaD, but this gets
> hairy, as I think I understand.
Exactly. The problem with the one example we have is that the
grammar it shows essentially changes the role of direct object
with a verb with {-moH}. Let's start with a verb that has no
direct object:
tuj bIQ. The water is hot.
bIQ vItujmoH. I cause the water to be hot.
The old subject becomes the new direct object and the one doing
the causing becomes the new subject.
But if the original verb had a direct object, the roles are
different:
taj Dachagh. You drop the knife.
SoHvaD taj vIchaghmoH. I cause you to drop the knife.
Now the old subject is the new INDIRECT object. The old direct
object REMAINS the new direct object. The one causing this
action is the new subject. This disturbs some people, so they
reject it. Their arguments are strong, especially since there is
so much ambiguity if the original verb had an INDIRECT object.
Where does THAT go? It gets messy.
I still think it works, so long as you don't try to get too
sophisticated with it, but language is not just opinion. It is
an agreement among participants. One person can't be "right" if
everyone else who speaks the language disagrees...
Unless that person happens to be Dr. Marc Okrand. {{:)>
> If I'm still off at a tangent, tell me to stop thinking about it. :) I'm
> just trying to get a grip on the finer points of grammar here. :)
I think you serve your interest best if you do seek to recast
this into a simpler pair of sentences. You really did well when
you did that. While I accept this controversial grammar, I don't
really encourage anyone, especially a beginner to use it. Why
upset people? This construction doesn't really give us the
ability to say something we can't say as well or better by
recasting with other tools. If your point is to use the language
well to express things clearly, don't use this construction.
> >> >> qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? chIch De'wI'mey ghorlaH SaymoH'wI'mey.
> >> >> reH Sengqu' SaymoH'wI'mey! :)
> >> >
> >> >tIHoH.
> >>
> >> {De' Hemaj Daghorta', DaH monglIj wIghor!}
> >
> >maj. Of course, that implies that they did it on purpose. Is
> >that really necessary?
>
> Well, would you call moving a server which is 3' square to clean
> underneath and behind it 'accidental'? <G>
qaja'pu' <<tIHoH>>. Qo'. qorDu'chaj naQ yIHoH!
> SovwIj ghurqu' mu'meylIj! HIQaHtaH! jIghoj 'e' vIneH!
laHlIj ghurlu'taHvIS choquvmoH. batlh majatlhjaj Hoch!
> --
> qonwI'
charghwI' 'utlh