tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 09 09:15:13 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[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



Back to archive top level