tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 23 14:15:54 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: charghwI's wish list (was Re: perpetual...)

Gee. You've managed an entire post such that I can't agree with
you on ANY of it. That's an accomplishment. Note, this is a
respectful disagreement and not a flame.

According to Marc Ruehlaender:
> 
> ghItlh charghwI'
> > What are the other questions we'd like him to address? Well, my
> > personal list, as I can remember it (since I forgot to copy it
> > forward from an old DayTimer:
> > 
> > 2. Give us a little more clarity on how we are to handle
> > transitive/intransitive status on specific verbs. Ideally, this
> > would mean having each verb in the vocabulary marked as one or
> > the other, or some new grammatical algorithm we currently do
> > not have to determine, for example, if I move my knife, is that
> > {tajwIj vIvIH} or {tajwIj vIvIHmoH}, or either.

You say that this example is not close enough to the point. I
see it as THE classic example, since even Krankor will argue
that this can be used transitively, even though the definition
follows the format described in TKD on pages 78-79: "For ease
of reference, English entries in the English-Klingon section of
this dictionary begin with the word that the user would most
likely be looking for, even though this may at times be
grammatically incorrect. This first word is, when appropriate,
followed by the correct translation..." The definition is
"move, be in motion". Nobody is going to look up "be in motion"
under "b". So, if there is a verb which specifically means "be
in motion", then one might logically look it up under "move",
even though "move" is not a totally accurate definition.

So, if this is the case, {vIH} ONLY reflects the meaning of the
word "move" as in, "I move to the music," or "The traffic moves
slowly," or "Move along, folks." The transitive use of the verb
would necessarily be {vIHmoH}, as in, "I move my hand,"
translating as {ghopwIj vIvIHmoH.} With that interpretation,
{ghopwIj vIvIH} would simply be wrong, whether or not an
English speaker would interpret it as correct, since the more
versatile verb "move" does not necessarily directly translate
into an exactly equivalent {vIH}.

Meanwhile, if Okrand spoke to the transitivity of the verb
{vIH} and indeed to all verbs, then we would not be left with
our current status of never knowing for sure if we are using
these verbs correctly.

> > 3. Can I violate the "only the second noun of a noun-noun
> > possessive can have a Type 5 noun suffix" rule to say, "I like
> > the daughter of the man who sells shoes."? Since using {-'e'}
> > to mark the head noun of the relative clause is a newer rule
> > than the limit against using that suffix on the first noun, is
> > this cause for an exception? {waqmey ngevbogh *loD'e' puqbe'*
> > vIparHa'.}
> > 
> in both cases I don't see the need. maybe it's just that the
> examples are not close enough to the point...
> 
> as for vIH: if you use it transitively, there should be
> 	no problem at all (i.e. you are understood);
> 	if you use it intransitively, there is the ambiguity
> 	that you just wanted to say that you 'generally move
> 	things around' when you say jIvIH, but aside from
> 	that I really can't imagine when one would need to
> 	say such a thing, most often context should make
> 	clear what you really meant

I can only see this as a sign of a limited imagination. "When
the officer pointed a weapon at me, I moved". I'm not saying I
moved anything ELSE around. I did not generally move things. I
just MOVED. Get it?

> as for loD puqbe': I don't see how "I like the (daughter of
> 	the man) who sells shoes." :-) is less ambiguous
> 	than "(waqmey ngevbogh loD) puqbe' vIparHa'"; again
> 	I suspect context to be responsible for the
> 	clarification (i.e. the person you talk to should
> 	know whether you need to specify whose daughter
> 	or which daughter you are talking about)

Since your parenthesis are not normally part of said sentence,
I could easily translate your suggestion as as:

I like the shoes which the man's daughter sells.
I like the man's daughter, who sells shoes.
I like the daughter of the man who sells shoes.

And by the way, in written English, you CAN tell the difference
because of the difference between a parenthetical relative
clause and an exclusive one being indicated by the presence or
absence of a comma. If I say, "I like the daughter of the man
who sells shoes," then the man sells the shoes. If I say, "I
like the daugher of the man, who sells shoes," then the
daughter sells the shoes.

The reason for this difference is along the lines of when it is
proper to use "which" or "that" to indicate a relative clause.
In "I like the daughter of the man who sells shoes," then "who
sells shoes" is definative, excluding all men except the one
man who sells shoes. In this case, you put the relative clause
next to its head noun and you don't use a comma.

In "I like the daughter of the man, who sells shoes," the comma
indicates that the relative clause is a parenthetical remark,
not needed to indicate which person you are talking about, but
adding a bit of description to that person. In that case, you
use the comma, and in this context, the only person one would
logically add a parenthetical remark about would be the person
I like, who is the daughter; the focus of the sentence.

In spoken English, the comma is a pause.

> however, if there are cases, context can't disambiguate,
> I'd like to see them :)

You just had one. Do I like the shoes or the daughter? Your
suggestion gives no indication whatsoever which I like.

> 				HomDoq
> 
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Marc Ruehlaender	[email protected]
> Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
> ----------------------------------------------------

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level