tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 28 15:17:18 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
According to [email protected]:
...
> You seem to be saying that because {vIleghlu'} has a prefix that indicates a
> {jIH} subject and because {-qang} ascribes volition to the subject, then
> {vIleghqanglu'} should ascribe volition to the {jIH}. I disagree with this
> for the following reason. "Subject" and "object" are grammatical terms, and
> since volition is a semantic concept, I'll use the terms "agent" and
> "patient", since they're semantic terms. In {vIleghlu'} the patient is {jIH}.
> I see {-qang} as ascribing volition of willingness to the agent, which in
> this case is indicated to be indefinite by {-lu'}...
By this reasoning, the example Heghqanglu'pu' must be
translated wrong, since neither {-moH} nor {-lu'} would be able
to change the volition from the agent to the patient. You spend
quite a while building this argument that {vIleghqanglu'} could
NEVER mean "I am willing to be seen," and then you abandon it
to accept ~mark's suggestion that the word is ambiguous and
must be interpreted by context. Copout. If you mean to say that
only the agent can have volition, then the word cannot be
ambiguous. If that is true, then Okrand's example is
translated wrong in TKD. If that is false, then why bother
spending so many words on an empty argument?
> The prefix flop does not
> make any change of agent and patient, and {-qang} should ascribe volition to
> the agent, not necessarily the subject indicated in the prefix, since the use
> of {-lu'} turns the subject indicated by the prefix into the patient rather
> than the agent. And the {jIH} remains in the object syntactic position to
> boot. I must look at any type 2 suffix used in such a situation as ascribing
> volition to the agent, which in this case is indefinite. In case that was too
> opaque, I'll summarize to say that I believe {-qang} in {[jIH] vIleghqanglu'}
> ascribes volition to the agent, which is indefinite, and not the {jIH}
> despite the fact that the prefix says it's the subject, because a) it is
> syntactically an object, and b) it is the patient, to which volition is not
> really appropriately ascribed. I'm still rather opaque, tho.
You leave no room for {Heghqanglu'pu'} = "It made him willing to
die." Yet there it is in TKD.
> jabbI'ID latlhDaq ghItlh charghwI':
>
> >As for content, I am one who believes that the correct
> >interpretation is "The book is willing to be read." It may
> >sound strange, but then so does {paq laDqanglu'}. Just because
> >"s.o. is willing to read the book," makes more sense in English
> >than "The book is willing to be read," that makes no difference
> >as to what {paq laDqanglu'} means.
>
> Actually, it *would* make a difference, because {paq} would not normally have
> any volition associated with it unless we're given one helluva good
> contextual indication.
So why does context matter if only the agent can have volition?
> >Let's stay in English. "The book is willing to be read," makes
> >less sense than, "One is willing to read the book." So, if I
> >say to you, "The book is willing to be read," does that mean
> >that you will decide that what I meant was that someone was
> >willing to read the book? I think not. You don't change the
> >meaning of a collection of words because its content would make
> >more sense if the words had been different.
>
> You're right. In this case, the volition is adrift and the whole sentence
> could be translated, "Willingly, s.o. would read the book." However, this is
> not always the case. Take {Sajvetlh HoHruplu'} for example. Its two possible
> interpretations are both quite pragmatic and logical, but are extremely
> diverse. "That pet is ready to get killed" could be said of some melancholy
> animal that's lost its zest for life and is ready to be ripped to shreads by
> some indefinite ravinous fiend, perhaps so that it can join a dead master in
> the Black Fleet. However, the other meaning, "Someone's ready to kill that
> pet" could be said about the pet in general, when it causes some disturbance,
> or does some obscene pet thing, or what not: {lojpu'DI' Soj, Saj
> HoHrupchoHlu'} does *not* have to imply the pet's readiness to sacrifice
> itself for the indefinite starving agent, if context doesn't imply it
> already.
You jumped into the "context determines who gets volition"
argument with no transition whatsoever. Before, only the agent
can have volition. Now, context determines who has volition. So
why have you changed your mind?
...
> Most likely, no one else cares that much about it. After much consideration,
> I would not be dissatisfied with ~mark's contention that {-lu'} used with a
> type 2 could be interpreted more than one way, ***depending on CONTEXT***,
> just as is the case with type 2's and {-moH}. I'm not dissatisfied because I
> realize that Calvin & Hobbes was wrong in saying, "A good compromise leaves
> everybody unhappy." That phrase applies mainly to money.
Meanwhile, this interpretation is basically pulled out of thin
air. Okrand simply doesn't tell us much about volition, except
to expect it on the subject, except for in one example with
{-lu'} where it is ascribed clearly to the object.
If we accept that {-lu'} moves volition to the object, we gain
a tool in the language. {Xqanglu'} indicates that the object is
willing to be Xed, while {Xqang vay'} means that somebody is
willing to X the object. We can be clear about who gets
volition. If this is not accepted, then we can never be clear
on who gets volition, and we get no new tools to disambiguate.
The language loses something.
> We can handle duel interpretations with context sorting things out. At least
> I can.
While we CAN, I wonder if we are better off for it.
> >nuqjatlh? Is this a dependent verb coming between the main verb
> >and its subject? Can we DO that? I kinda hope we can't.
>
> See TKD 6.2.4. The {-meH} clause modifies the noun here: "events for me to
> suffer inappropriately."
It would have been better if you had saved the original here. I
see the example, but I'm not sure that the meaning was clear
enough in context that omitting the pronoun left you with a
clear sentence. I don't feel too bad for not clearly
understanding it.
> >> >bIQubchu'jaj. May your discontent drive your passions to visit
> >> >perfect insight briefly and repeatedly so you may enjoy
> >> >drinking while thirsty instead of merely drinking.
> >>
> >> I might have prefered this last sentence in Klingon.
> >>
> >> bItlhutlh neH 'a bItlhutlh bI'ojqu'taHvIS neH 'e' DatIvmeH, pIj nom
> bIHaDchu'
> >> 'e' tungHa'jaj Duyonbe'bogh DotlhlIj nong'e'.
>
> >pagh:
>
> >bIyonHa'taHmo' bInongqu'jaj. Hoch DaSovchu' 'e' bInongqu'mo'
> >DanejtaHjaj. 'ojqu'bogh tlhutlhwI' Quch law' 'ojbe'bogh
> >tlhutlhwI' Quch puS. bInejtaHvIS tlhutlhwI' 'oj DaDajaj.
>
> 'ach DIvI' Holvo' Damughta'DI', wej mu'tlhegh lutu'lu'. wa' mu'tlhegh moj wa'
> mu'tlhegh, mughlu'DI', 'e' vIHarqu' jIH.
I don't care how many sentences there were in the original
while translating. That's the kind of formality that
unnecessarily gets in the way of clear meaning.
> In other words, parallelism is a good thing.
I see it as a neutral thing. No harm done if it happens, but
harm can easily be done while trying to make it happen.
> >> ghuy'Do
>
> >charghwI'
>
> ghuy'Do.
>
charghwI', etc. etc.
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |