tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 16 21:25:20 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pong
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: pong
- Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:28:29 -0500
SuStel writes:
>jIQubtaH . . . We all know of the problem with the word {pong}. We don't
>know how to say something like "I created a character. His name is Krunoth."
Sure we do. {pongDaj 'oH Qunotlh'e'}. That *is* how you said it.
>Suppose {pong} were considered a word of saying. After all, a name is a
>thing you say. If this were the case, then to say "I named him Krunoth," you
>could say {Qunotlh vIpongta'} or {vIpongta' Krunoth}. If you were going to
>play the part of Krunoth in a play, I could say {Qunotlh qapong} or {qapong
>Qunotlh}. This would eliminate the double-object problem.
Ugh. Verbs of saying are usually used with complete sentences.
I think a very good answer came up a while ago -- the object of the verb
"to name" is the person or thing being named, whereas the name itself is
an entity called a "predicate nominative" or some such term. Since it's
not a subject or object, the name must just go somewhere before the real
object of the sentence. There's no Type 5 "syntactic marker" noun suffix
for names, so in the manner of time words, the name should probably just
sit there with no explicit indicators.
>I myself will not use this idea until more information comes out, but I
>thought it bears contemplation. Personally, how to use the words of speaking
>is {mI' wa'} on my own wish list. However, I'd love to be able to say
>{SuStel jIpong'eghta'}.
This sentence fits the pattern of making the name an unmarked non-subject,
non-object syntactical entity. It doesn't require any new rules; it just
means we have to decide that {pong} has the same *single* direct object as
"name" does, and that a predicate nominative is neither subject nor object.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj