tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 15 21:17:23 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
jaH
- From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
- Subject: jaH
- Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:35:44 +1100
- Organization: University of Melbourne,Dept. of Linguistics & Applied Linguistics
>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:09:32 -0500 ()
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RE: KLBC: Translation
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:27:33 -0800 Alan Anderson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nick Nicholas writes:
>> >I still disagree, because I think this is an unduly restrictive reading of
>> >TKD. The dictionary says ghoS *and other directional verbs* need not take
>> >-Daq.
>It's not nice to imply quotation when one is not quoting
>anything. I believe that the badly paraphrased statement is:
>"There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions,
>such as {ghoS} /approach, proceed/. The locative suffix need not
>be used on nouns which are the objects of such verbs."
>I don't see "other directional verbs" and "verbs whose meanings
>include locative notions" as being different descriptions of the
>same set of words.
I think you've just dug your own grave. Locative is, if anything, a more
general notion than directional; if we don't assume he means just
'directional' here, but all locatives, stative and directional, then he may
well be licencing "quS vIba'" --- something for which we have no precedent
whatsoever. For directionals, at least, we have the precedent of ghoS.
>The simple truth is Okrand gives us nothing
>to determine which words other than {ghoS} can be treated this
>way, except for words we naturally use that way without thinking
>about it, like {'el}, {Dech}, {bav} or such. The association
>between objects as locations and verbs indicating entry,
>surrounding or orbiting is quite natural.
>I don't see {jaH} as being a member of that set of words. Okrand
>could easily correct me in this if I'm wrong, but so far that
>has not happened. I do not assume that every verb implying
>motion can use a noun as its object.
So, it's natural for 'el to take a direct object, because it's associated
with an object as location, and it's natural for ghoS, but it's not natural
for jaH, because the thing you go to is... not a location? And the
difference between jaH and ghoS is that what you approach... is a location?
I'm sorry, charghwI', but this is sophistry. The simple fact is, the reason
you consider it natural for 'el to take a direct object is because that's
what English happens to do. There is nothing inherent in the semantics of
'el to differentiate it from jaH. The things gone to in both cases are
Goals, in case grammar terms. What cases they turn up in in natural
languages --- datives, accusatives, direct objects, indirect objects --- is,
if not arbitrary, at the least open to choice.
The German TKD has already come out. What if 'el is glossed as "eintreten",
which must take the preposition "in"? What happens if, tommorow, a German
Klingonists says that you can't say "juH vI'el", but must say "juHDaq
jI'el", because the German verb is clearly intransitive? Are you going to
say that the German TKD is non-canon, and the English TKD is?
The accident of case assignment in English is no basis for argumentation.
The only such basis is what we can infer about the semantics of these verbs.
We know that verbs other than ghoS take direct objects. I maintain that the
verb the *least* semantically distant from ghoS is jaH. So the one other
verb I *would* expect to take a direct object is jaH.
Now, understand that my own policy all along, too, has been to err on the
side of caution. But if we bar jaH here, then we'll need canon to justify
the use of direct objects with Dech, 'el, and bav, which you regarded as so
obvious. You have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that your criterion
for obviousness is better than mine. If we can truly be sure of nothing but
ghoS taking direct objects, then "yuQ vIbav" can no longer be considered
acceptable. (And I must say, I have problems with that use of bav anyway.)
>Meanwhile, {jaH} seems quite naturally intransitive. All the
>canon we have for it is intransitive. It's definition is an
>intransitive English word. I can't find a reason to think it is
>transitive for any purpose, let alone as some abstract
>association you've made up with the verb {ghoS} by inserting the
>descriptor "directional" where Okrand never used it.
There is nothing (*nothing*) natural about following a course being direct
objects, and going to locations not. "I killed the Klingon" --- Klingon is a
patient, and that's naturally a direct object, just as I am an agent, and
that makes me naturally a subject. But for other roles in the sentence,
there is a fluidity as to what the language picks. Canon is not decisive,
because -Daq is optional, not proscribed. The English rendering is not
decisive, because there isn't a word for "go" in English which *could* take
a direct object. As for me, I can't see anything less "abstract" about bav
being transitive than ghoS; and 'locative' is a superset of 'directional'
--- I was, if anything, being more conservative than the wording allows, not
less.
In real life, I'm happy to emend all the vIjaH in my text to 'oHDaq jIjaH;
but particularly since Mark had let me get away with it in Hamlet (then
again, we are both Esperantists and Lojbanists, and that explains why we
would see jaH as transitive; the real issue is, why should you not) --- I'd
rather have grounds more relative than this.
--
Nick Nicholas Linguistics, Uni. Melbourne Dera me xhama t"e larm"e,
[email protected] Dera mbas blerimit
http://daemon.apana.org.au/~opoudjis Me xhama t"e larm"e!
In case you're wondering: Lumtunia nuk ka ngjyra tjera.
the poem is in Albanian. (Martin Camaj, _Nj"e Shp'i e Vetme_)