tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 20 11:24:46 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC double object verbs
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC double object verbs
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 14:16:14 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marc Ruehlaender" at Mar 20, 96 02:23:09 am
Seeing this very long post, I see that when several recognized
experts line up and tell you pretty much the same thing, you
don't find that very unconvincing. Dajqu'.
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
>
> 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'".
This is a very weak argument. While it is true that only nouns
with no Type 2 suffix can be singular, the absence of a Type 2
suffix does not indicate singularity. The presence of a Type 2
suffix definitely indicates plurality. The absence of such a
suffix simply does not address the issue of singularity or
plurality. Failing to address the issue is not the same thing
as providing information.
In Klingon, except for confirmation through context, there is
no way to guarantee that any noun is singular. The verb prefix
pointing to the noun as subject or object can provide this
context, or having the noun preceeded by {wa'} could do it, or
overall context might tell you that a noun is singular, but no
noun suffix or absence of suffix will ever prove that a noun is
singular in Klingon.
Suggesting that there is a null Type 2 noun suffix meaning
"Could possibly be singular" is not really a very interesting
option.
> > > 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.
Neither is it an indication of an incomplete sentence, which
was your claim. The giver, the gift and/or the recipient may
very well be indefinite. Any of this may be insignificant to
the focus of the thought generating the sentence. The ability
to express a focus without unnecessary, distracting details is
one of the fundamental necessities of any expressive language.
> > 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)?
Yes. With a slight modification, I can see a very common
example. There is a knock at the door. The Klingon head of
household answers. An obvious solicitor for a local charity is
on the front porch. {yaHDaq jInobpu'!} SLAM!
Complete communication.
> > 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?
No. There is a focus on what kind of beings (people) are doing
the giving, what they are giving (gifts) and when they are
giving. The recipients are insignificant to the meaning behind
the sentence. Your focus on the recipient is artificial and
alien to the thought behind the sentence.
> > "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
Again, the speaker does not really care about the specifics of
the gifts. The speaker explains that there are entities called
"charities" which perform the function of "giving" for the
benefit of entities called "the needy". This is a complete
message. Perhaps some give food or money or volunteer labor or
assistance to find jobs or housing or... The point is that the
specifics of any individual gift may vary so widely that
specifying the gift at all may not serve the intent of the
sentence which is to include ALL gifts that such institutions
might offer. In this way, the more indefinite the reference to
the gift, the better the sentence serves its intent. The most
indefinite reference is no reference at all. You are alone in
believing that such a reference is necessary to complete the
sentence.
> > "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 :)
But the context does not require a reference in this sentence.
See the above example. yaHDaq jInobpu'.
> > 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.
bIyajbe'law'. If context makes clear that which I am currently
seeking to understand, then {jIyaj} is a perfectly complete
sentence. To say {qayaj} "I understand you," or {qechlIj vIyaj}
"I understand your idea," is essentially redundant, and while
all languages contain redundancy, Klingon requires less of it
than most.
> > 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?
See TKD page 170:
jIyajbe' - I don't understand.
jISaHbe' - I don't care. [Since SaH is defined as "care
(about)" then this sentence lacks an implied object: that which
I care ABOUT.]
page 171:
jIyaj - Understood. I understand.
DaH yIDIl - Pay now. [Pay what? With what? For what?]
There are many canonical examples which violate what you
interpret to be a grammatical rule about complete sentences. It
is time to give up on this argument. You, not me.
...
> > 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
I suspect you just just hit a wormhole at Warp 9 and appeared
in a new Universe where the laws of Physics and Grammar are
completely Different. I'm trying to hook a tractor beam on your
idea here, but it just won't hold. I can't get a lock on it...
> > >...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...
But whether it is the calf or farmer taking the milk, the cow
is still giving it, and if you want to describe what the COW is
DOING regardless of whether a calf or farmer is the cooperative
party, you must simply say, "Cows give milk," and omit any
reference to the recipient. You want to make a statement about
the fact that COWS give milk, cows GIVE milk, and cows give
MILK, but you don't really want to exclude the cow, the giving
or the milk regardless of who or what is taking the milk. There
is a universal law about cows, giving and milk and their
relationship and this law does not really care who gets the
milk. The sentence is an expression of that universal law. To
say "Cows give milk to calves," or "Cows give milk to farmers"
is an incomplete expression of that universal fact. The
sentence is MORE complete in expressing its intent than it
would be if it were to include a recipient.
> HomDoq
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
> Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
> ----------------------------------------------------
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |