tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 25 19:40:37 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sentence really as object
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Sentence really as object
- Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 22:40:56 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
charghwI'vo':
You have a very interesting theory. I have another
one for you to consider.
On Sun, 25 May 1997 16:53:32 -0700 (PDT) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> jatlh charghwI':
>
> > I tend to remember this when there is an explicit {'e'}, but at
> > one point I thought the rule did not apply to {neH} since I see
> > it as fundamentally different from other Sentence As Object
> > constructions.
>
> I've got a pet theory on that (no surprise there). Suppose that {neH}
> sentences work the same way, but instead of using a pronoun to represent the
> entire previous sentence, and instead of merely *dropping* the {'e'}, the
> previous sentence itself is the object?
Or what if {neH} is caught in an evolution between being the
second verb of a Sentence As Object construction and becoming a
verb suffix. It's function nearly fits {-qang}, except that for
its full versatility, the person doing the wanting needs to be
independently specified from the subject of the first verb.
> Consider
>
> verengan HoH tlhIngan 'e' vIlegh
> I saw the Klingon kill the Ferengi.
>
> If we change to {neH}:
>
> verengan HoH tlhIngan vIneH.
> I want the Klingon to kill the Ferengi.
>
> Now, suppose we added a time context, or an adverbial, or something, to the
> second sentence:
>
> verengan HoH tlhIngan DaHjaj 'e' vIlegh
> Today I saw the Klingon kill the Ferengi.
>
> This is how it works so far as we know (though there have been variations).
> The {neH} sentence would work differently, however:
>
> DaHjaj verengan HoH tlhIngan vIneH.
> Today I wanted the Klingon to kill the Ferengi.
>
> Here's the sentence again, with some explanatory marks:
>
> DaHjaj (verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH.
But notice how little the meaning changes if you change this to:
(DaHjaj verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH.
In most cases, these have the same meaning. Meanwhile, I get a
strong sense that if there were a way to fit a verb prefix onto
a verb suffix, the language wants this to become:
DaHjaj verengan *HoHvIneH* tlhIngan.
In this way, the verb {neH} can never really own an adverb or a
time stamp or aspect. This idea is what rationalized for me the
inability for {neH} to take an aspect marker in this useage. I
believe that the only reason {neH} has not become a suffix is
that need to independently assign the subject to {neH}.
> The bit in parenthesis is what would normally be replaced by {'e'}. This
> time, according to this speculation, the very sentence itself is the object.
>
> The beauty of this idea is that it explains one of those variations in canon
> on this topic:
>
> reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH
> I've always wanted to fight a Federation ship. (Spoken by Captain Klaa in
> Star Trek V.)
>
> If he's saying this:
>
> reH (DIvI' Duj vISuv) vIneH,
>
> it makes perfect sense.
Ahh, but for a Klingon, it also makes sense as:
(reH DIvI' Duj vISuv) vIneH.
"I want to always fight a Federation ship."
Actually, what I believe it REALLY means is, once again:
reH DIvI' Duj *vISuvvIneH*. "Always I want-to-fight a Federation
ship." I see it as very similar to {reH DIvI' Duj vISuvqang.}
The similarity is easier to see because the subject of wanting
and the subject of fighting is the same entity.
> Sure, there can be some ambiguity with the
> adverbials. So? Maybe there's even an as-yet undiscovered rule stating that
> the first sentence of a sentence-as-object using {neH} cannot have any sort of
> adverbials or Type 5 suffixed nouns. Who knows?
This would COMPLETELY surprise me, since it violates my gut
feeling about this almost-suffix nature of the verb {neH}.
> This might even explain why Azetbur apparently says {'e' neHbe' vavoy}, when
> {neH} isnt' supposed to use {'e'}. You need *something* there, and she's not
> going to repeat the whole sentence, so she uses {'e'}. I imagine this is an
> acceptable grammatical shortcut for Klingons.
Agreed. Although to me, this use of {neH} feels different, in
that if you say a sentence, I can't add a suffix to the verb for
you. I have to make up my own sentence. I can use {'e'} to
represent your sentence and use a verb with it, and {neH} is
certainly a verb.
Just as {ta'} is both a verb and a suffix with a similar
meaning, {neH} is both a nearly-suffix verb and a stand-alone
verb. I believe Azetbur was using the stand-alone verb here.
That's why she needed the {'e'}.
So, do you find THIS theory interesting?
> --
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 97399.0
charghwI'
Stardate 97399.3