tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 13 05:45:57 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: nIDwIj wa'DIch


> While I fully agree that {*Qob* 'oH pongwIj'e'} is the "safe" way to say "My
> name is Qob", I think it's time we stopped fighting over the "instinctive" use
> of {pong}.  The original argument against using {pong} to say "I name my son
> 'Qob'" was that this requires apposition ("son" and "Qob" are in apposition). 

No, they're not.  This is not apposition.  This is a double-object construction.  If it were apposition, you still wouldn't know what you were naming your son, Qob.  It's like this: 

	I name my son Qob.		(double object)
	I name my son, Qob, Kruge.	(apposition)

I put the commas in there to make it clearer.  And since we're talking about naming someone, the examples seem really nonsensical.  Apposition is when two nouns sit side-by-side, and seem to both fill the same syntactic role assigned by the verb.  Normally (for transitive verbs), a verb assigns two roles, one to the subject and one to the object.  

	I see the apple.

If there are other roles, they are typically assigned by prepositions.

	I see the apple in the barrel.

Normally, this is quite restricted.  If there is a noun that isn't receiving a role, the sentence is ungrammatical.

	* I see the apple the knife.

The verb only assigns one role, but there are two objects.  Ungrammatical, because one object is receiving no role.  Now, apposition comes into play, when the two nouns co-refer (refer to the same item), and they seem to "share" the verb's role.  It works with subjects and objects.

	I see the apple, the macintosh.
	My son, the doctor, sees the apple.

With verbs like /pong/, they seem to assign two separate object roles, a feature of verbs that occurs relatively rarely (across languages, though of course we just don't know about Klingon).  The argument is how that will work in Klingon.  We know about objects (before the verb); we know about indirect objects (at the beginning, marked with /-vaD/).  All other objects come before.  But what about double-objects?  We have evidence of apposition, but I can't remember where.

Sorry about the rant.  This isn't the first time I've seen the term "apposition" used to refer to double-object verbs.  Just a little pet peave of mine.

> Fido: Bill Willmerdinger

--Holtej

Back to archive top level