tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 09 09:15:13 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Blood of the vanquished
On Fri, 9 Sep 1994, Nick NICHOLAS wrote:
> Well, let me say what I think happened:
>
> * From the description in TKD and what little I know of topicalisation,
> -'e' is intended as the equivalent of Japanese -wa. Okrand drops extremely
> heavy hints to that effect. (Topicalisation is how Western linguists describe
> Japanese -wa, and when translating it, they always say things like "It was
> the Ferengi who...")
>
> * But Klingon word order is, as you say, rigid.
>
> * Position serves to identify whether a noun is subject or direct object;
> suffix serves to identify whether it is an oblique object. The suffix -'e'
> can be used to indicate that something is both topic and subject, or topic
> and object. But Klingon morphology doesn't allow us to indicate that something
> is both oblique object and topic.
>
> * We have only seen topics in subject and direct object position.
I suppose Okrand may have intended {-'e'} to be used for topicalisation
the way you describe it. I'm not really convinced, but I suppose it's
possible.
But I do understand your frustration about not being able to "topicalize"
the indirect object of a sentence. (I hope "indirect object" means the
same thing as your "oblique object". I'm still wiping the egg off my face
from that relative clause "head" vs. "subject" matter. {{:-) ) I think
the current usage evolved from an oversight more than anything else. The
first edition of TKD (a little blue book with a bird-of-prey on the
cover) did not mention any method to indicate the indirect object of a
sentence. I think Okrand simply overlooked it. We didn't know how to
indicate an indirect object until the new TKD (with supplement) came
out. I speculate that rather than change or invent new grammar, he
just decided to stick with existing suffixes. Since Okrand chose to
use the existing Type 5 suffix {-vaD} to indicate the direct object,
it naturally precludes us from using {-'e'}.
> * English does not delete prepositions in its 'topicalisations'. "It is the
> Ferengi that I sold the phaser *to*". Thus we are unaccustomed to the
> situation where it is not indicated that something is both oblique object
> and topic.
> * Therefore we are unlikely to read verengan'e' pu' vIngev as Ferengi-wa
> phaser-o I-sell (Could you supply a better translation? Thanks.)
I'd probably be inclined to use Ferengi <ni> ....
> * Therefore, in effect, Klingon topicalisation has degenerated to a
> focalisation: a mere emphatic, as you've describe it. I do not think Okrand
> intended this; although I could be wrong, I doubt it, because of...
>
> * Therefore the evidence given by "HaqwI''e' DaH yISam", that -'e' is a
> topicaliser after all, has been ignored.
Does Okrand use this construction a lot? If he has I haven't noticed it.
(But then I haven't really looked for it. {{:-) ) Is there a lot of
evidence?
> * Therefore Klingon as used has moved beyond its prescription --- something
> I tend to regard as a good thing, although this is not as widespread a
> sentiment as I like to delude myself. :-)
Personally, I'm just trying to get a handle on the fundamentals of Klingon
grammar so that I can use it correctly and unambiguously. I'm just not
at that stage of development to be exploring avant-garde usage. {{:-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> Nick Nicholas. Linguistics, University of Melbourne. [email protected]
> [email protected] [email protected]
> AND MOVING REAL SOON NOW TO: [email protected]
>
yoDtargh