tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 19 16:12:20 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
<-vam> was (taghqIj concedes defeat!)
- From: [email protected] (Anthony Curran)
- Subject: <-vam> was (taghqIj concedes defeat!)
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 18:13:03 -0500 (CDT)
>According to Anthony Curran:
>>
>> >According to Matt Treyvaud:
>> >..
>> >> But how would it be if I said:
>> >>
>> >> qaStaHvIS poHvam, pa' jIHbe'
>
>> In TKD sec 3.3.4 p26 it states, "<-vam> this. Like its English
>> translation, this suffix indicates that the noun refers to an object which
>> is nearby or which is the topic of the conversation." and "<-vetlh> that.
>
>I think the word "object" is key here.
>
>> Like its English translation, this suffix indicates that the noun refers to
>> an object which is not nearby or which is being brought up again as the
>> topic of the conversation."
>
>Again, I think the word "object" should not be overlooked. He
>is not saying that you can use this to refer to the topic of
>conversation. He is saying that you can use this to refer to an
>OBJECT which is the topic of conversation.
>
Ahh. Now I see your point.
>Given this wording, I'm tempted to be even MORE conservative
>and not use it on {ghu'} or {wanI'}. These are arguably not
>objects.
>
>> The second part of these definitions does not
>> seem to place any spacial or temporal restriction on the referent.
>
>Actually, it sounds even more restrictive than I initially
>thought. It sounds like it is appropriately used only on
>concrete (as opposed to abstract) things. If you can't touch
>it, you don't really have grounds to use {-vam} or {-vetlh} to
>refer to it.
>
>If Okrand provides examples or testimony to expand from these
>restrictions, great. If yoDtargh can remember any such examples
>(a skill for which he deserves to be legendary), I'd love to
>hear it. Meanwhile, I'm reluctant to take your broad
>interpretation. I can see what you want to see in Okrand's
>words, but I don't see it there myself.
>
>> If
>> during the course of a conversation we established that a specific event
>> took place during a certain period of time, then <poHvam> or <poHvetlh>
>> would be a valid referent connecting the present conversation to the prior
>> event. Or am I missing your point?
>
>But just because a {poH} is the topic of conversation, that
>doesn't make it "an object which is nearby or which is the
>topic of the conversation". Distill the phrase, and it means
>"an object which is the topic of conversation". I can't agree
>to distilling it to just "any topic of converstaion".
I see your point, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with it. While your
interpretation is literally correct, it does not seem to be in synch with
the general character of tlhingan Hol. The language seems to place a great
deal of emphasis on context to facilitate the flow of conversation. My
interpretation would follow from that assumption. However, a counter to
that argument could be found in a point raised in a separate thread. The
current discussion concerning <qaStaHvIS> vs. <-Daq>, and the fact that
these have each been used explicitly in the appropriate circumstances,
would seem to indicate that there are affixes or whole words to cover
specific situations such as this. We simply haven't seen the appropriate
affixes or words yet.
I'm not sure this can be resolved easily. I would tend to believe that
using <-vam> or <-vetlh> on a time word, or on <ghu'> or <wanI'> would be
fine as long as context made the meaning clear. Communication is, after
all, our intent. I think we may hamstring ourselves if we place too many
restrictions on such contructions, simply because there is no explicit
statement extant that they are allowed. And I think that the language in
sec. 3.3.4 concerning <-vam> and <-vetlh> is sufficiently open to
interpretation that it cannot be taken as an explicit statement against
this construction.
This may simply be a difference in outlook. Perhaps the writer in me
rebels at such restrictions. On the other hand, bad grammar is
inexcusable, no matter how creative we wish to be.
qo'ran
>
>> qo'ran
>
>charghwI'
>--
>
> \___
> o_/ \
> <\__,\
> "> | Get a grip.
> ` |