tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 17 06:22:58 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <Hol wIja'chuq> was: Re:...
> >*sighs* You are ignoring the key word in Qanqor's post:
>
> > *usually*
>
> >Althought the words that precede the rest of the sentence *usually* take
> >a type 5, it says right there in the KD that they do not HAVE to. True,
> >this may only be included because of the special cases of naDev, pa',
> >etc... but my 'instincts' say this isn't so. Yeah, I know 'instincts'
> >don't count for squat, but I think this would be soemthing worth
> researching/looking into.
>
> DujlIj yIlachHa'Qo' 'ej yIvuvtaH. Of course your instincts count. Instincts
> have everything to do with how languages are used.
"Never unexaggerate your ship and continuaously trust it"? Huh?
Yes and no.
When we were at the qep'a', I remember a debate between ~mark and
Qanqor. I don't remember what it was, other than they were argueing over
some point of grammar that there was just flat out not enough information
to really support either side. Both claimed their "instincts" led them
to think they way they did. They both ended up agreeing that they didn't
have enough information on the topic, and that their "instincts" differed.
In short, they agreed that until they had more proof, they would
disagree--and that "instincts" really aren't a good arguement. (yeah, so
I shouldn't have used it in the first place). (I am trusting that neither
one of them will take offense at my having recounted this little tale, if
they even remember it.)
Remember that a person's "instincts" about a language are based on
*their experience* with languages.
And when you look at it in this light, *none* of our "instincts" are any
good, because none of us is tlhIngan, really.
> But the above paragraph of trI'Qal I am very much glad for. You people are
> *FINALLY* realizing what I've been screaming for months!!! {-Daq} is not
> necessary half the times you use it. In fact in TKD 3.3.5 in the part on the
> locative it states quite clearly that {-Daq} when used with verbs of motion
> is redundant. For some reason I can't hope to ever know, no one seems to
> realize this until *I* point it out to them. {ghoS} is transitive! OK? Say it
> with me 3000 times until it's in your head. {Duj vIghoS} is entirely
> acceptable. The {-Daq} in {DujDaq jIghoS} is as redundant as the {-pu'} in
> {qIpchuq puqpu'}. Realize also that virtually all verbs of motion are like
> this:
>
> {qach vIqet. tengchaH wIpaw. Sajraj boyIt.}
You are exactly correct on this point, although I am not certain that
this is what I was arguing in the first place.
But to lend more credit to your arguement:
"There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions,
such as <ghoS> "approch, proceeed". The locative suffix neeed not be
used on nouns which are the objects of such verbs." (TKD, p. 28)
Unfortunately, we don't have a list of what those verbs *are*, other
that <ghoS>. In light of that, I think most of us, myself included, tend
to play it safe... especially when we think about the sentence after the
examples following the paragraph quoted above:
"If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting
sentence is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong."
> There's just no room to argue. It's there in TKD. Plus, just to emphasize my
> point, {-Daq} on {pa'} (when it means "thereabouts"), {Dat}, and {naDev} is
> illegal. I would also venture that it's illegal on {vogh}, but don't bet the
> mortgage on it.
You are absolutely right; those words cannot take -Daq. I wouldn't bet
on <vogh>, either. Until we get a specific example, I would still -Daq it.
> ><Hol wIja'chuq> is definitely ugly. It is flat-out ungrammatical. Yes,
> >I *know* <ja'chuq> is a seperate dictionary entry, but that doesn't
> >change the fact that what we have here is a verb with a type 1
> >attached... and the grammar, as we know it, doesn't allow wI- at the
> >beginning of such verbs. Make sense?
>
> Yeah yeah. It doesn't conform to perfect logic, but then.. I feel quite
> acceptant of {Hol wIja'chuq}. It's rather colloquial (think of it, Klingon
> slang now!), but it makes perfect sense to even novices in the language. I
> personally find it more natural than the stiff {maja'chuqtaHvIS Hol wIqel} or
> some such. You see, if an American goes, "Lugnuts? We ain't got no more
> lugnuts!", he/she/it is in no danger of confusing anyone. You see, languages
> work by what people understand. They most certainly do not have to conform to
> total logic, as any natural language will demonstrate in an instant.
Yes, but you forget one thing:
We don't have the authority to decide what is "slang" and what is not.
Other wise, why not just re-write the entire language so that we can get
rid of that awful O-V-S arrangement... or throw in a SAO?
Come on! You are saying that just because a word is listed in the KD, it
defies the laws of grammar we were given? I suppose next you are going
to tell me I can say something like:
?jIHvaD lo'laHlaH taj?
"The knife can be valuable for me"
I don't think ANYONE is going to agree this is a viable construct. *I*
certainly wouldn't! And what you are doing is essentually the same
thing: You are saying that because it happens to be listed seperately in
the KD, it is a WHOLE NEW WORD, and that it defies the rules we have been
given so far.
I don't buy it.
Unfortuantely, I don't have my tapes here with me to skim for an example
to support this. If what you are saying is true, then we can have things
like <maja'chuqchuq> "we discuss each other". Sorry, *MY* KD sez I can
only have **ONE** of each verb suffix type on each verb. And this sure
as HELL looks like it is in violation of this rule to me.
Why don't we just start letting people say <ramvam HIpong> "call me
tonight" and get it over with???
--tQ
--
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH, qatlh reH HaghtaH HoD Qanqor...?
--HoD trI'Qal Captain T'rkal ---------------------
tlhwD lIy So' IKV Hidden Comet | [email protected]