tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 03 16:16:00 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Okrand on /jatlh/
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Okrand on /jatlh/
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 18:14:20 -0500
At 02:08 PM 7/3/97 -0700, charghwI' wrote:
>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.
>
ghaytan bIHemqu'. 8+)
>> 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.
>
My only real point in this post was to draw attention to that "_whatever_" that
MO slipped in his explantion. I really have no trouble accepting the thing
which is spoken as an object and direct quotations as separate sentences. I
think of the behavior of {jatlh} like a spectrum: at one end you have
actual objects and subject-object prefixes, at the other end, you have
separate sentences and no-object prefixes. If Okrand had left it at that,
all would be well. But by slipping in "or whatever" as possible
objects of {jatlh}, I think he leaves the door open to all sorts of
interpretations of what happens to {jatlh} in the middle of the spectrum. My
sentences were examples of the confusion that could result. I bet some
creative newbies could come up with much more bizzarre conclusions that mine.
>
>> 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}.
>
qechlIj vIlaj.
>> 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.
>
Actually, and this is my point, Okrand wasn't _very_ clear; he was very
clear until he inserted that "whatever".
>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.
>
I would like a clearer explanation of what words (or phrases?) can be objects
of {jatlh}. "Whatever" is a little too vague for me.
>
>charghwI'
>
-- ter'eS
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711