tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 03 13:53:40 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Okrand on /jatlh/



According to Terrence Donnelly:
> 
> So it looks like charghwI' was mostly right about {jatlh}.  

Not really. It looks like charghwI' was COMPLETELY right about
jatlh. charghwI' was PERFECTLY right about {jalth}. Okrand's
explanation was precisely descriptive of my understanding of
jatlh which I formed by looking at Okrand's examples in canon.

> But I'm still
> wondering about something.  According to the first part of MO's reply, all the
> following should be valid.
> 
>    tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh.       I speak Klingon
>    SoQ vIjatlh.                I speak (~give) a speech.
>    mu' vIjatlh.                I say a word.
>    mu'tlhegh vIjatlh.           I say a sentence.
>      (He did say the object of {jatlh} could be a language a lecture, or
>        _whatever_).

qay'be'. I agree.

> OK, so consider the last two sentences.  I should be able to use noun apposition
> to specify, for example, the word I actually said:
> 
>    mu' <nuqDaq> vIjatlh.       I say the word "Where".

I can deal with this, but I can see an invalid "slippery slope"
being formed here.

> This would be parallel to other types of apposition, eg. {paq <tlhIngan tigh>
> vIlaD}.  Now, I believe that in apposition, one can omit the head noun if
> it's understood from context.  

That's an interesting belief. I have no idea where it comes
from and certainly can't accept it in this context, but it is a
very interesting belief.

> So, you could say
> 
>     <tlhIngan tIgh> vIlaD

Well, actually, no, you can't, if you are trying to say that
you read the book. {tlhIngan tIgh} is not a book.  It is a
title of a book. The way you've written it, you are stating
that you have read the words {tlhIngan tIgh}.

> Omitting the {paq} as understood.  If so,...

But logically, you can build an argument like this from ANY
false premise, since it is not so.

> presumably you could say
> 
>     <nuqDaq> vIjatlh.

VERY presumably. You presume too much.

> Omitting the {mu'} as understood.  

No. Omitting the {mu'} is MISunderstood.

> So, consider my last sentence:
> 
>     mu'tlhegh vIjatlh.         I say a sentence.

Fine.

> Using apposition, could I specify the sentence I actually said:

No, you can't. Direct quotation is a specialized grammatical
construction. You cannot build your own specialized grammar
just because you want to and then expect anybody else to agree
with you. Okrand was very clear here and you have ignored him.

>     mu'tlhegh <SoH 'Iv> vIjatlh.  I say the sentence "Who are you?"

No way. Once the meaning slides toward direct quotation, you
have no choice but use the proper grammer for direct quotation.

> Omitting what is understood from context, could I produce:

No, you can't.

>     <SoH 'Iv> vIjatlh.

This is simply incorrect. Okrand plainly explained that this
would be {SoH 'Iv jIjatlh.} More accurately, I'd say, {SoH 'Iv
jItlhob.}

> Hence, my confusion.  The sentences {<nuqDaq> vIjatlh} and {<SoH 'IV> vIjatlh}
> seem correct, 

No, they do not. You could as easily make up your own
grammatical construction for comparitives and it would be
exactly as invalid at this.

> if the logic chain above is correct, 

and it is not, since it is based upon false premises.

> but both contradict what
> MO says about direct quotes later in the same post.  

That's because you are not paying attention.

> In this case, the sentences
> should be {nuqDaq jIjatlh} and {SoH 'Iv jIjatlh}.  There apparently is some
> cross-over point at which one set of rules for {jatlh} ends and the other
> begins.

Yes. It's called "quotation". It has its own grammar which is
not directly related to anything else in the language, similar
to comparisons or Sentence As Object or the use of {neH}
following a verb. Each of these are discrete grammatical
constructions which have no debt to behave like any other
grammatical construction in the language.

> Just a first thought on this topic, which we may want to keep in mind as we
> puzzle out exactly what MO meant.

It doesn't look like all that challenging a puzzle, really. He
has remained quite consistent to these new explanations
throughout all canon use. Now, he more explicitly explains the
rules he has been using all along.

> -- ter'eS
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711

charghwI'


Back to archive top level