tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 20 02:20:47 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC double object verbs




ghItlh charghwI':
> > what, exactly, is the difference between a "not existing affix,
> > represented by empty space" and a null affix?
> 
[about the 0-prefix of verbs]
> 
[about the lack of verb suffixes]
> 
> Similarly, for nouns, Type 2 suffixes tell you both plurality
> and whether something is a body part, being capable of language
> or neither, or whether they are scattered all about. The lack
> of a Type 2 suffix tells you none of these things. There is no
> evident null Type 2 noun suffix.
> 
> This is perhaps the best example, since we'd be tempted to say
> that a noun lacking a Type 2 suffix must be singular, right? 
Wrong! A noun lacking a type 2 suffix MAY be singular, which
any other noun may not. Thus I insist, one CAN (but need not)
describe this by using the concept of a -0 Suffix. The information
it gives is then "neither -pu' nor -mey nor -Du'".
> 
> > but "Give to him." and "Give it." are not complete sentences,
> > are they. 
> 
> Yes, they are. They may offer incomplete information, as do
> most human sentences in any language, but they are complete
> sentences. Context tends to fill in a lot of information.
What I really wanted to express was, that with each Giving there
must be a Giver, a Gift and a Recipient. The fact that english
allows that some of the information need not be stated is no
indication that they are not involved. 

> There are certainly contexts in which your sentence would be
> complete, but very few in which they would be equivalent. Each
> of your sentences had a focus and the focus was unrelated
> between them. One focussed upon what he gave, with no
> reference to whom he was giving it. The other focused on the
> recipient with no reference to what was to be given. By the
> same token, you could just say {yInob} and be done with it.
> "Give!".
But could I say {jInob} without anything I could give or anyone
I could give it to present (then or now)?

> 
> charghwI'

ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
> >...but "Give to him." and "Give it." are not complete sentences,
> >are they.
> 
> Sure they are.  "People give gifts at Hanukkah" is a complete sentence
> with no indirect object. 
but a giving with no recipient is throwing away the gift, no?

> "Charities give to the needy" is a complete
> sentence with no direct object. 
but without anything to be given, the needy will not be very excited

> "I gave at the office" is a complete
> sentence with no objects at all.
and which I don't understand at all without further context
(e.g. whom you gave what :)

> I don't think they have to "really mean" anything more than what they
> say: "Give to him."  The gift is unspecified, and not necessarily even
> implied.  (Do you have a problem with {ghaHvaD penob}?  
the same problems I have with jIyaj, yes: there must be something
you understand or give, whether it's stated or not.

> This doesn't
> have the ambiguity of {ghaHvaD yInob}.)  "Give it."  The recipient is
> unspecified and, in the absence of context, unimportant.
I admit that the explicitness of a noun may be connected to its
importance in the speakers mind - on the other hand who tells you
that it's not a faux pas to NOT subsume a pronoun that indicates a
person in the verb prefix?

> >> If you're going to call something a "direct object", you should
> >> use the accepted linguistic definition.
> >that's why I put the terms "indirect object" and "the"
> >in quotation marks: to indicate that I had given them
> >a meaning, different from the one in English. I needed
> >a definition, which is more applicable to the Klingon
> >sentence with only one object and "chuvDIp".
> 
> TKD 6.8 (in the Addendum) uses the term "indirect object" in exactly
> the way I have been discussing it.  I don't see a need to invoke any
> other meaning, especially one which only you are giving it.
> 
but Okrand doesn't distinguish between "indirect objects" in the
sense of english grammar and any other "beneficiary" of an action.
For the discussion I was going to start, I found it usefull to extend
the meaning of "indirect object" in the sense of Klingon grammar
(which doesn't have one) to all mandatory noun phrases, that are
neither subject nor object

> >> Time stamps and locatives are not objects of either sort.
> >again, that's only a definition:...
> 
> True, but it's a definition given at the beginning of TKD 3.3.5:
> "...in Klingon, nouns which indicate something other than subject
> or object usually must have some special indication of exactly what
> their function is."  These nouns are marked with Type 5 suffixes,
> such as {-Daq} (locative).  The Addendum section 6.7 indicates that
> time elements also are not objects.
> 
> >...if a verb demands that a
> >locative appear in the sentence, that locative sure acts as
> >an object to that verb - Klingon doesn't distinguish between
> >"necessary" and "optional" locatives
> 
> I don't understand what you mean.  What "necessary" locatives are you
> referring to?  
unfortunately, I don't have an English example ready, but there are
german verbs which demand a locative:

"sich befinden" = "to be at a place"
"wohnen" = "to live at a place"

Neither "Ich befinde mich." Nor "Ich wohne" are complete sentences.
In these cases the locatives are "necessary".
what I wanted to say above is that Klingon doesn't distinguish if
a noun (phrase) with a type 5 suffix can be left out of sentences
with that special verb.

> >...a sentence with "nob" doesn't make
> >much sense to me, unless a giver, a gift AND a recipient are
> >either explicitly or implicitly mentioned.
> 
> Here's one that I hope you agree makes sense:  "Cows give milk."
> 
but there's always someone who takes it, the calf or the farmer...

> > So do you read
> >paq vInob = vay'vaD paq vInob
> >as "I gave the book TO SOMEONE"?
> 
> No, I don't read it that way.  Without a stated indirect object, an aspect
> suffix, or other context, I read it as "I give a book" or "I give the book."
> It might also easily mean "I give books."  I imagine a librarian, or maybe
> someone who hands out free copies of a publication.  If you had previously
> mentioned another person who might be a reasonable recipient, I would be
> inclined to consider that you actually did or will give the book to that
> person, but seeing the words by themselves I don't get any such impression.
> 
but the librarian has to give the handouts to someone!

Sorry, I have to leave now, I'll be back in a week or so..

			HomDoq

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


Back to archive top level