tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 19 19:13:01 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Nick's comments on HolQeD 3.1



Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Captain Krankor jay'?

=>From Nick:
=>Comments on HolQeD 3:1.
=Well, Nick apparently loved everything in the new issue except what
=I wrote.

Ah, your grasp on the conspiracy theory needs updating: it's you and trI'Qal
;) . Seriously, though, you're the grammarian, of course it's your stuff
I'm going to comment on primarily. It's a perk that comes with the job.

I don't recall making any comment about your pages 3, 4 or 6, but I'm sure
you have a more acute eye than mine...

=>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. 

=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.

Look, these are appositions:

jupwI', QanwI'wI' vIHoHta'.
HoHvIplaw' petaQvelth, wI'orv.
juHDaq, qachDaq vIlegh.

This is not an apposition:

qachDaq juH vIlegh

because qach and juH are not fulfilling the same syntactic function (one is
a direct object, the other indirect), though they both may have the same
denotatum (bulding/home X).

*Syntactic* function is determined by distribution, not by semantics.
We have one class of syntactic objects, which are nouns, get -Daq or -mo' or
-vaD, and appear before verbs, and before other nouns without Type 5
suffixes, if present. There have been less reasonable things done in history
than to call those suffixes postpositions (happy?) and call this object
a postpositional phrase.

There is another class of objects, which consists exclusively of nouns
denoting points in time or space, don't take type 5 suffixes, and appear
before verbs and direct objects.

There's a third class of objects which Okrand calls adverbs. My intuition
is that the second class (*undocumented* in TKD) goes more naturally with
these than the first (as a syntactic rather than lexical class), but
that remains to be shown; I won't insist on it.

For you to maintain that naDev juHlIjDaq is an apposition, you must show
that classes 1 and 2 are distributionally interchangable: juHlIjDaq naDev
has to be grammatical; everywhere juHlIjDaq can appear in a sentence, naDev
must be able to appear (and vice versa), and so forth. This is probable, 
but not at all self-evident. If it turns out true, then it's odd: DaHjaj 
does not correspond to any postpositional phrase, since -Daq is spatial; 
this would require explaining (we know the *real* explanation, the English 
substratum. Hey, that too was an apposition.)

Until you establish that naDev and juHlIjDaq are of the same syntactic
class (which has *nothing* to do with lexical class/ parts of speech), and
thence the same grammatical *construction*, to use your definition, you
cannot claim they are in apposition. You *certainly* can't use this to
support a potentially ambiguous apposition involving a quite different
grammatical constructions (two objects, or two subjects, which the Klingons
would have good functional reasons for avoiding studiously.)

End of story.

Look, this is not at all going to come across as conciliatory, but it's
at the root of why we don't get along, I suspect. Please, next time you
want a grammatical term explained, don't look up a lay dictionary. Look
up a linguistics textbook. That *is* what they're there for.

=>naDev juHlIj, furthermore, makes perfect sense as an N-N construction, if
=>we interpret the N-N relation in a sensibly loose fashion. 

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

naDev can easily be both an adverb and a noun. Which funnily enough is
what I'd just said. And I repeat, lexical class is irrelevant; it is
syntactic function which determines appositions.

=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.

Not the point I was making. I was merely pointing out that you'd claimed
naDev juHlIj as N-N doesn't make any sense, not just not making sense
in this context (thence your use of double question mark, and your stilted
translations); a claim I established was false.

=>2. Krankor's position on -ghach is at odds with his usual procedure of
=>taking the most *conservative* solution in such cases 

=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.

Then we have a very different definition of conservatism. My definition
is an interpretation of the rules that presumes the smaller amount of
possible utterances is actually grammatical. There is disagreement on
whether VERB+ghach is grammatical. There is no disagreement on whether
VERB+taHghach is grammatical. I would interpret conservatism here as
going with the alternative which will not rouse grammaticality debate.
I think what's really happening here is that you're speaking qua grammarian,
and I'm speaking qua stylist. You have your reasons for thinking VERB+ghach
is grammatical; for my part, if I'm to generate grammatical text, then if
the slightest doubt over VERB+ghach persists, I cannot use it in my texts
in good conscience. Obviously, we are at cross-purposes.

Basically, I'm using Mark's reasoning. To quote him from February:

***

Just a quick word to add here; there may have been some misinterpretation
of my position.  The fact that I don't use -ghach on unsuffixed verbs
anymore should not be attributed to a wholehearted support to Glen's
article.  Rather, it is because the article convinced me that there was
room for argument, and indeed there *is* argument.  In keeping with my
innate wishy-washyness, I have adopted the most conservative approach of
using neither option that might be considered questionable: neither using
-ghach on unsuffixed verbs nor assuming nouns from verbs that aren't in
evidence.  Another major cause is simply that my Klingon style is moving
away from so much nominalization in the first place, reducing the need
(there may be some causal relationship between these causes as well).  In
my book, though, the argument is definitely not closed about -ghach.

***

=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.  

Well, there you have it. I *do* pick the latter... *shrug* The language
can accomodate such difference in opinion, I suppose... For the reason
I presented, while the burden of proof lies on those who would say
VERB+ghach is ungrammatical, the burden of proof is also upon those who
would use VERB+ghach, a form whose grammaticality is in question, in their
prose.

=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.

Grow up. My phrase "persisting uncertainty" would seem to me to indicate
I read till the conclusion of your article. And your final sentence is
why I responded in the first place: insisting on using a grammatical form
whose grammaticality is still in question is irresponsible. And the fact
we agreed the situation is muddled does not at all prove our conclusions
on what to do about it match.

=>The article on p. 8 certainly doesn't "clear up" the issue,
=Huh?  Excuse me?  [...]

Do forgive me; I'd misremembered your "rebut" as "clear up the issue".
Nice sarcasm, btw.

=>and the persisting uncertainty is intolerable.
=To you.  I manage to tolerate it quite well, thank you very much.

I'm not surprised. You're not sitting on 170 K of Klingon text whose 
acceptability may be called into question. (Good thing I killed all the
bare -ghach's.)

=> 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.

Fine. I still think it's intolerable. Either we have a language here in
which we can express ourselves with conviction and certainty, or we have
a game of Nomic. Incidentally, it *is* your job to bring these things up
with Okrand, isn't it? And if you think bringing them up with him is a
good idea (actually, I can't tell any more whether you think it necessary or 
not), shouldn't it be done as soon as possible? It's not just me affected, 
after all; there are others involved in the Bible and Shakespeare projects, 
not to mention the original writing project, and if grammaticality isn't
concrete by the time these works start being published by the KLI (whereupon
*they* will become the primary carriers of grammaticality), then it never
will be.

This uncertainty is getting in the way of me, and others, doing our job.
It's about time Okrand started doing *his*.

=>7. p. 19. 

I explained what I was talking here in another letter.

=>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."  [...]

This one's given me pause. Apart from the fact that just about everyone
on this list would nowadays say jISuv reH 'e' vItIv, the distinction
between a fight and fighting needn't necessarily be there in Klingon
(it isn't there in Lojban; both are {nu damba}). As for "cheapening"
the aspectual suffixes --- that's a process that happens in real languages
all the time. After all, all verbs in Russian have to be either continuous
or perfective. It's possible that Klingon verbs needn't be either, but
gerunds might need to. In that case, -taH would cover both continuous
and instantaneous, and they'd be distinguished by nI' or something.

Anything is possible in language, which is why it pays not to presume. When
the huge debate over the meaning of passive participles in Esperanto
(whether they're aspectual or tense-based) blew over, the result was that
noone used passives any more. The same has happened with -ghach in Klingon;
*that* is to me far more interesting than anything else --- it shows how
the community appropriated the language.

-- 
Nick.



Back to archive top level