tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 27 10:57:32 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James] [Not so short and easy]
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James] [Not so short and easy]
- Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 13:55:50 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 10:26:19 -0800 (PST) James Coupe
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "William H.
> Martin" <[email protected]> writes
> >> Which seems to fit with Okrand's usage of direct and indirect objects in
> >> KGT (like latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr vIqang - I (subject) pour the cold
> >> bloodwine (object) into another glass (indirect object, I think)).
> >
> >It really helps to cite page numbers so we can look up the
> >larger context in examples like this. Anyway, {latlh HIVje'Daq}
> >is not an indirect object. It is a locative. It simply tells you
> >where the action of the verb occurs.
>
> First of all, apologies for my appaling example but it was the best I
> could think of at the time. Anyway, what is the difference between:
>
> I pour the cold bloodwine into another glass
>
> and
>
> I give the ball to you.
Let's add a little detail and this may become more clear. I pour
cold bloodwine into a glass for you. Now, you can see that the
benefactor of the pouring is "you", so "you" is the indirect
object. "Into a glass" is just the location where the pouring
took place. It is not the indirect object. It is just a
locative. The bloodwine is the direct object while "I" is the
subject.
If I said, "I give the ball at you", then maybe {-Daq} would be
appropriate and I could say, {SoHDaq moQ vInob.} Meanwhile, you
are more than the location I did the giving. You are the
benefactor of the action of giving, so you are the indirect
object. {SoHvaD moQ vInob.} Okrand allows us a special shortcut
when the indirect object is first or second person, so we can
also say this as {moQ qanob.} This is very similar to the
English shortcut where "I give the ball to you," can also be
stated as "I give you the ball."
> (Besides subject matter)
>
> Subject - verb - object - preposition - indirect object
The least universal concept in language is that of prepositions.
In fact, perhaps the single thing that marks each language (and
even each verb or noun within each language) as unique is the
relationship with prepositions.
I sit in a chair or on a table. I would never sit on a chair or
in a table.
The following two sentences mean exactly the same thing: A moon
orbits a planet. A moon orbits around a planet.
I take time "off from" work when I go "on" vacation, but I don't
go "on to" vacation.
I walk to a store when I approach a store, but I don't walk a
store nor approach to a store. I enter a building, but I enter
into a relationship.
Prepositions are simply peculiar. Don't expect to represent
prepositions in one consistent way when you translate from
English to Klingon.
"To" or "at" tend to get translated as the noun suffix {-Daq}.
The verb {ghoS} is an exception where the locative concept is
handled as the direct object of the verb. This is also likely
true for similar verbs, like {bav, 'el, Dech, ...} but likely
not verbs like {jaH, qet, ba', Qam...} where {-Daq} is still
necessary.
"Over" and "under" tend to be translated into nouns {Dung} and
{bIng} with or without {-Daq}, depending on the meaning.
"To" or "for" or any other preposition used for indirect objects
or those who are the beneficiaries of action tend to be
represented by the noun suffix {-vaD} with a specific meaning of
the person being addressed as the only currently acceptable use
of {-vaD} for the verb {jatlh}.
"With" is a real problem, since it can mean "use something in
order to accomplish a task" or it can mean "accompany". "I hit
the door with a hammer," is quite different from "I went to the
bar with my friends." In English, we use one preposition for
both, but in Klingon, these two sentences are completely
unrelated. Then there are cases like "I approached the door with
caution." Here we mean, "while I was being careful" or better
yet, "In order that I approach the door, I was careful." It
sounds awkward in English, but it is quite natural in Klingon.
So, basically, when you see a preposition in English, don't look
for one global rule as to how to translate it into Klingon.
Instead, learn the different grammatical tools in Klingon and it
will become natural to you when you seek the right tool to
express a given prepositional concept in Klingon.
> I'm not a grammarian but I thought it was an indirect object if there
> was a preposition (from the FAQ):
>
> <<One point of confusion for beginners is that Klingon does not seem to
> always distinguish between direct objects and indirect objects. For
> those not currently studying grammar in any language, in the sentence,
> "I give the ball to you,", "I" is the subject, "give" is the verb,
> "ball" is the direct object and "you" is the indirect object. You can
> recognize the indirect object because of the preposition "to" in front
> of it. >>
You have overgeneralized a rule of thumb. The indirect object is
the beneficiary of the action the subject applied to the object.
"I give the glass to you," has a role for each noun. "I" is the
subject. "The glass" is the direct object. "You" is the
indirect object. It is the function of the noun that gives it
its grammatical role, not the words around it. In English,
helping words tend to indicate a word's role in the sentence,
but it is not dependably consistent.
> Notice the last sentence which would indicate that "into another glass"
> would be an example of an indirect object following a preposition (and
> into *is* a preposition - I checked the dictionary).
"Into" may be implied in the verb itself such that its meaning
is applied to the direct object, if indeed {lIch} means "pour
into", much like "enter" can be thought of as "get into". I
enter a car. I get into a car. I do not enter into a car, nor do
I get a car. English is not consistent in its use of
prepositions. Get used to it.
"Into" may be a location for a verb that does not include
locative concepts in its definition. In English, I can say that
I ran into my friend at the restaurant, which is extremely
different from running into a car at the intersection or
climbing into the driver's seat or pouring into a cup or looking
into the idea of changing my job. This one English preposition
really gets stretched into many unrelated directions.
You need to back away from the concept that a single word has a
single meaning. You need to not translate words. You need to
translate concepts. Learn the Klingon tools that express certain
ranges of concepts and then try to express those concepts until
you build a large enough toolbox that you can express whatever
you want. Stop looking for the one correct way to translate a
given word. It doesn't exist, especially for prepositions.
> And as for the reference for the quote:
>
> >latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr vIqang
>
> Try KGT, in the idioms section, p. 118
>
> latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIqang! ("Pour the cold bloodwine into
> another glass" - idiom for "I don't believe you, someone else might")
>
> It's later varied (bottom of the page) as:
> lalth HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr vIqang ("I pour the cold bloodwine into
> another glass" which would be interpreted literally as that, maybe as a
> comment on the food)
>
> Now, I think that qualifies as a canon usage of indirect objects. If it
> isn't, what exactly is "into another glass".
It is the locative. The glass does not benefit from the action
of pouring. The person who will drink the glass you pour is the
indirect object. That person is not referred to in this example.
> IMHO, It's not locative
> (in the sense of that it doesn't tell you where it happened - it's not
> like saying "We had a picnic near the river" because the other glass is
> actually being utilised.
Well, what can I say? You are wrong. It is a locative. There's
really not a lot more I can say about it. Okrand uses {-Daq} in
this canon example. {-Daq} is used on locatives. It is not used
for indirect objects. {-vaD} is used on indirect objects. There
is also a shortcut that can be used when the indirect object is
first or second person.
That's just the way it is.
> You could split up "We had a picnic near the
> river" (my example of locative)
Well, it is not a very good example of a locative, since we
don't have a locative noun suffix meaning "be near". Instead, we
have a verb meaning "be near", so to say this, you would need to
have two verbs, which makes it easy to split it:
> into two separate sentences - "We were
> near the river. We had a picnic." How do I separate "I pour it into
> another glass" into two sentences.
Simple. You don't. Locatives do not normally need to be split
into a separate sentence.
> Well, "I pour it" could be one
> sentence. The other sentence would have to be "It was poured into
> another glass" which would be a use of an indirect object in the same
> sort of way as "I went to school" - school isn't the direct object, it's
> the indirect object.
School is the locative. It is the location related to the action
of the verb. School is not the indirect object. "I went to
school for my career," might be interpreted in such a way that
you career was considered an indirect object, though that would
be a little controversial. Indirect objects are typically
sentient beings.
> It's just that we haven't, before, been able to
> combine the two. And AFAIK there is no way, in Klingon, of translating
> the second sentence into the passive voice.
jISaHbe'.
> Let's see, stepping outside the realms of the Klingon Language, I'll run
> to French to prove my point:
>
> Yannick Noah achete des chocolates
> complement d'object direct (COD): des chocolats
>
> The first sentence means: Yannick Noah buys some chocolates
> The second means: the direct object is some chocolates
>
> Yannick Noah les offre a ses enfants
> complement d'objet indirect (COI): a ses enfants
>
> The first sentence means: Y.N. offers them to his children
> The second means: indirect object is to his children
Your example is a good example of an indirect object in French,
English or Klingon.
> So, I pour it into another glass would have a subject of I, a verb of
> pour, a direct object of it, a preposition of into and an indirect
> object of another glass.
No, it would not. It would have "I" as subject, "pour" as verb,
"it" as direct object, and "into another glass" as locative.
Misinterpreting this truth repeatedly does not make your
misinterpretation accurate or convincing.
> So do we now have an example, in canon, of how to combine direct and
> indirect objects in one sentence?
You don't have to split them into two sentences in the first
place. They weren't split in canon. You are lost out there
somewhere and I don't quite know how to reach you. I'm sending
up a flare, trying to show you the difference between an
indirect object (a typically sentient beneficiary of an action)
and a locative (a place where something happens; a noun which
exists at a place where something happens).
The wine glass is not sentient and does not benefit from
pouring, but it does exist in the place where the pouring
happens. It is not the indirect object. It is the locative.
> --
> tlhIbwI'
charghwI', taghwI' pabpo' ru'
Temporary Beginner's Grammarian, December 20-30