tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 25 01:27:10 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.
> 
seems to me however, that we're not so much disagreeing
but rather misunderstanding... I'll try to find out:
(in the following: t = transitive, it = intransitive)

> > > 2. Give us a little more clarity on how we are to handle
> > > transitive/intransitive status on specific verbs. Ideally, this
> 
> You say that this example is not close enough to the point.
> 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.
> 
I misinterpreted your needs: thought you wanted to have
clarification on whether words should be used it or t; 
Now I think you want to know wether they can be used
both ways or only one, right? this invalidates my remark
about context of course.

> > 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?
> 
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, here 
I agree, I tend to rather convoluted sentences
must try to stop this habit...

what I was saying was indeed, that in most cases, when you
use jIvIH, one would try to parse it as it usage
(the 'I generally move things around' was what I was referring
to when I said, I couldn't imagine when one wanted to say it;
just as I still don't know what 'I understand things in
general' as per pp 33-34 is supposed to mean)

> > 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.
> 
o.k. the first possibility is not in the english.
but this is the reason why we invented the usage
of -'e' to mark the head noun in the first place

> And by the way, in written English, you CAN tell the difference
> 
> In spoken English, the comma is a pause.
> 
alright. but then (except for the object/subject
ambiguity) Klingon is at least not more ambiguous
than german, which uses a comma and a pause in both
cases (NOT optional):

Ich mag die Tochter der Frau, die Schuhe verkauft.
(had to change loD = Mann to Frau = be', so that the
relative pronoun be the same for both cases)

> > 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.
> 
I agree that the standalone sentence is ambiguous. but as
I said above, the person you're talking to should know,
whether there are many men with daughters, but only one man
sells shoes or whether there is only one man with many daughters
and only one of his daughters sells shoes
(and of course s/he should be aware of whether you talk
about people at all or about the shoes...)

			HomDoq

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

Back to archive top level