tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 19 15:22:13 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Nick's comments on HolQeD 3.1




>From Nick:

>Comments on HolQeD 3:1.

Well, Nick apparently loved everything in the new issue except what
I wrote.  Let's see if I can defend myself just a bit (and apologies
for the delay, life has been intense).


>1. naDev juHlIjDaq, contrary to Krankor's claim, is not an apposition. He
>quotes the definition of 'apposition' as "the second [term...] has the
>same grammatical construction as the first". naDev is a locative adverb.
>juHlIjDaq is a prepositional phrase. They are both the same *semantically*
>(locatives), but not *syntactically* --- certainly nothing to do with
>the noun-noun couplings discussed. My intuition, incidentally, is that
>appositions are *not* Klingon.

Sorry, this argument does not stand up to water.  "naDev is a
locative adverb"... balderdash.  Check your dictionary; naDev is a
noun.  "juHlIjDaq is a prepositional phrase".  No, try again.  There
is no such thing as a prepositional phrase in Klingon, since there
is no such thing as a preposition in Klingon.  Trying to pretend
that Klingon grammar is English grammar doesn't get one too far.
juHlIjDaq is a noun, pure and simple.  That it has a type 5 noun
suffix on it does not change that fact.  So, yes, they are indeed
the same semantically (locatives), but they are also identical
syntactically:  nouns.  I have fulfilled the explicit requirements
for apposition.


>naDev juHlIj, furthermore, makes perfect sense as an N-N construction, if
>we interpret the N-N relation in a sensibly loose fashion. If bIng juH
>means "the house below", then naDev juH means "the house in *this* area".
>Remember, naDev is a noun as well as an adverb; "here" in English is
>not a noun --- but "this area" is (a noun phrase).

If it makes perfect sense as a N-N construction, then you have
yourself conceded that they are both nouns after all.

In any case, this doesn't bear very well on the example.  naDev juH
could, under the right circumstances, mean "here's house" or "the
house of here" or, somewhat more loosely, "the house in this area".
But naDev juHlIjDaq as a N-N would mean "In your house of here",
presumably as opposed to one of your other houses.  Sorry, it
doesn't cut it, given the English translation we are given.  The
naDev isn't describing the house, it's describing the place of
eating.  Both the naDev and the juHlIjDaq are describing the place
of eating.  They are both describing the same place.  They are in
apposition.


>2. Krankor's position on -ghach is at odds with his usual procedure of
>taking the most *conservative* solution in such cases (which here would
>be -taHghach, since it would not be invalidated if Krankor's thesis is
>shown valid.)

I disagree.  I think I am being extremely conservative.  The
-taHghach solution requires postulating a rule which is, at best,
only implied, whereas in all other cases of special suffix
restrictions, such as -taH being required with -vIS, the
restrictions have always been given extremely explicitly.  We have
always been free to apply suffixes to our hearts content as long as
we remain within the explicit restrictions, and my interpretation of
-ghach conservatively sticks to this basic paradigm of Klingon
grammar rather than allowing the radical precident of inferring
restrictions that may well not be there.  As I said in my article, I
think the reading that infers the restriction is quite an overreach.

In any case, my procedure has NEVER been to take THE most
conservative interpretation.  THE most conservative interpretation
of *anything* is always going to be "you can't do it because Okrand
didn't explicitly say you can!", even if what you are trying to do
follows undeniably from the rules Okrand set out.  My position has
always been and continues to be to take the most *reasonable*
position, where by 'reasonable' here I mean, 'validated by the
process of reason, i.e. supported by empirical evidence and/or
logical inference'.  That ends up being pretty conservative, because
it eliminates making things up just because we'd like to have them.
But conservativism per se, for its own sake, has never been my goal.
Faced with a clear ambiguity in the rules, I have *always* tried to
pick the one that made the most sense given the data available--
not pick the one that would cause the least trouble should Okrand
choose to elaborate.  In deciding which makes the most sense, it may
well be necessary to draw on our knowledge of the language as a
whole, not just the specific issue at hand.  In our specific case,
the language as a whole allows us complete freedom of suffixes as
long as we stick to explicit restrictions, so as far as I'm
concerned, the burden of proof lies on those who claim for the
alleged restriction on -ghach.  This burden of proof has not been
met; 4.2.9 is just too ambiguous to prove *anything*.

But in any case, this particular complaint about my position WHOLLY
MISSES THE POINT.  The main thrust of my article, as
anybody else out there who actually read what I wrote will attest
to, is that the current situation is very muddled and we really need
to get Okrand to resolve it.  Blithely ignoring major occasions
where my conclusions match yours would really appear to belie the
notion that you do not sit down and write your posts specifically to
cut on Krankor.  But I'm sure I'm just being paranoid.


>The article on p. 8 certainly doesn't "clear up" the issue,

Huh?  Excuse me?  Did the title "The Continuing -ghach Controversy"
in some way lead you to expect the definitive resolution of the
issue?  Forgive me for being so misleading, I'll try to do better
next time.

>and the persisting uncertainty is intolerable.

To you.  I manage to tolerate it quite well, thank you very much.
Indeed, Lawrence positively revels in it.


> It is about time, I feel,
>Okrand earn his keep. Either he resolves this by next issue (this has been
>kicking around for *months*), or we give up waiting and set up a Klingon
>Academy. (I don't think I'm overreacting. This situation really is 
>intolerable.)

I think you are grossly overreacting.



>3. The author on p.11 is a superstar and should be given lots of money.

wa'maH qelI'qam tIqbogh betleH vIlo'taHvIS maqghachvam vImupqangbe'bej {{;-)



>4. The author on p.12 is pretty cool too. ;)

No argument there. {{:-)


>5. p. 17. Ruth Marie Bieber, meet Will Martin. ;)

Heh.. {{:-)


>6. p. 17. Jonathan Van Hoose's suggestion seems to me pretty high priority
>for discussion amongst the HoDpu' here it would affect...

<shrug> Actually, it's old hat.  I stated my own position on this years ago,
literally.  I'll restate:  ST5 contains more than enough buggy
tlhIngan Hol to take anything from it without a grain of salt.  I've
been HoD Qanqor since well before that shoddy film came out, and I'm
not gonna change just cuz of that.  My take is that it can be done
either way, until proved otherwise.  Of course, if it shows up again
in a more reputable source, I may well have to back down.


>7. p. 19. I'm not sure what to make of trI'Qal's translations of her
>Holorimes. Either she's misinformed about Klingon grammar, or is in fact
>quite ingenious in exploiting it. (I'm thinking in particular of
>jup, lI' Daq 'e' ghoS ta' --- "Friend, the emperor goes away from the site
>which is transmitting.")

<shrug>  I see no big deal here.  The sentence works fine if we make
two suppositions.  The first is that the space between Daq and 'e'
here is a typographic error.  I can assert from direct experience
that such an occurence on the pages of HolQeD is quite possible.
The second is that she is using the Proechellian
freely-presume-nouns-from-verbs theory on lI', presuming it as
"transmission", in which case lI' Daq would be "the site of
transmission" or "the site which is transmitting".  While this
theory is not generally mainstream, it was published in HolQeD
itself, so its application on the pages of HolQeD can hardly be
considered a transgression; moreover,  it seems perfectly within the
spirit of the contest to use it-- the contest is about trying to
find the most *possible* meanings, not those which are formed in the
best or most approved way.  It is, after all, a game.



>8. p. 20. -pu'ghach is as valid as -taHghach, and would refer to the single
>acts Anthony has in mind. (Remember, -pu' is aspectual, not tense).

I dispute.  -pu' still means the action is completed, and one might
well want to nominalize a verb which is neither continuous nor
complete.  An example just off the top of my head:  Suvghach-- "a
fight", or perhaps "fighting", as the gerund (*this* to me is the
more interesting -ghach issue-- exactly *how* does it nominalize?).
We'll make the sentence:  rut Suvghach vItIv -- "I enjoy a good
fight now and then."  SuvtaHghach wouldn't work, that means
continuous fighting, not the kind of brief scuffle I'm trying to
allude to.  But Suvpu'ghach would definitely seem to mean more
"having fought"-- after all, by -pu', the action is complete.
That's not what I mean at all; I mean I enjoy it while I'm doing it,
not afterwards.

In short, I assert that claims that one can always just stick on an
aspect suffix (or any other, for that matter), without perceptibly
changing the meaning just cheapens the suffixes.


                    --Krankor

                      ("Still HoD Qanqor, after all these years...")



Back to archive top level