tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 19 08:33:00 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)

According to Terrence Donnelly:
> 
> At 09:40 AM 11/18/97 -0800, SuStel wrote:
> >From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> >
> >>>You cannot say "we Klingons" in Klingon.  You cannot say {maHagh
> >>>tlhInganpu'} for "We Klingons laugh."  It just don't work that way!
> >>
> >>Just to pick a nit:  How do we know it doesn't work that way?  Is
> >>it explicitly forbidden by canon?
> >
> >We don't know (i.e. it is not printed in Okrandian script).  It is my firm
> >and unshakable-except-only-by-one-person opinion.  It also sounds silly to
> >me to do it your way.  I rely highly on my instincts in knowing right from
> >wrong in Klingon, and this one is sounding every alarm.  I know that you
> >will not accept this explanation.

> You're right about that.  Arguments of the type "it just doesn't feel right"
> or "it violates my instincts" or even "the language doesn't need it" are
> non-arguments: totally subjective, unanswerable.  

Bullshit.^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h I disagree.

Having been here on this list expressing quite strongly what
feels right, explaining my instincts and talking about what the
langauge doesn't need, I'll remind you that these
"non-arguments" have been later confirmed by Okrand to be
correct a LOT more often than they have been proven incorrect.

I was completely right about {-ghach}. I was completely right
about the question word "which". I was completely right about
comparatives (even though that meant disagreeing with my dear
friend Krankor). About the only thing I can remember being
wrong about was the placement of {Hoch} when used to modify
another noun, and when Okrand made his pronouncement about
that, he threw in stuff that NOBODY expected ("each" vs. "all").

My point is that experienced users of the language (like
SuStel) really CAN trust their instincts the majority of the
time. Claiming that such instincts are meaningless, you
disrespect a very valuable source of understanding for this
language.

> If we all started 
> talking that way, then we might just as well shut down the server 
> and go home.  

I could say the same for anyone who proposes that we ignore the
wisdom of these instincts and just twist the language any way
we want to whenever we want to.

> If you don't like a legal construction, then don't use it, 
> but you can't condemn it simply because of that.  

I think it is fine to both not use a construction AND speak
out against its use. Nobody bans constructions here. You can
use {-ghach} however you like, for instance. Someone will
correct you repeatedly, and others will merely roll their eyes,
chuckling to themselves over yet another fool mangling the
Empiror's Klingon.

The sky will likely not fall if people disagree with you. Talk
about shutting down the server is impotent whining.

> The only reason that can absolutely make something illegal is Okrand's
> saying it is.  Canon that seems to contradict a construction or carefully
> reasoned arguments can make a construction highly unlikely (such as
> the recent QAO debate).  Subjective feelings are simply that; they can't 
> _prove_ anything. (Although a preponderance of opinions from those with the
> proper credentials can be a powerful argument, I admit.)

Thank you.

> You condemned this construction so categorically that I assumed you 
> had facts to back up your statement. I have reasons why 
> I think this construction is valid, which I will give you below.  

Good. I'm definitely listening. Arguements impress me more than
posturing.

> >> It seems like simple apposition
> >>to me (to those who reply that apposition needs two nouns, just
> >>think of this as a briefer form of {maHagh maH tlhInganpu'}).  Why
> >>isn't this phrase legal: {bIQIp SoH qoH} "You, fool, are stupid."
> >
> >I don't think Klingon apposition would work with pronouns.  They already
> >perform so many other functions, this one just doesn't seem to fit.  I
> >highly, seriously, and completely doubt that it could also be elided.  This
> >apposition is anything except "simple."
> >
> 
> You're right about this, too, in a way: the question has nothing to do
> with apposition.  I spoke too soon.  What we are really considering
> is whether a verb with a first or second person subject prefix can take
> an expressed subject noun (or in the case of -lu', first or second
> person objects).  I think it can because:
> 
> 1. We already know from TKD that a verb with any subject prefix can 
> optionally take an expressed pronoun. {maHagh} and {maHagh maH} are 
> both legal (tho with a change in emphasis, to be sure).

This is a good point, but I'm not sure it stretches to your
argument.

> 2. We also know that a verb with a third person subject prefix can
> take an expressed noun subject or not: {legh} and {legh yaS} are
> both OK.

Quite true.

> 3. It seems valid to me to believe that since all three persons
> exhibit the same behavior with pronouns, they can also exhibit the
> same behavior with nouns, namely, the type of behavior already
> exhibited by the third person.

Well, there are differences. As an example, the whole issue of
using a conflict in person between explicit direct object and
the direct object implied in a verb's prefix to indicate
indirect object works only with 1st and 2nd person. {tajvetlh
HInob} is an example. Okrand explicitly tells us that only
works with verb prefixes indicating 1st or 2nd person. That was
Okrand's first explicit description of grammatical differences
in the way that various persons are handled.

> 4. It's not prohibited anywhere in the Okrandian corpus.

That's an argument exactly as strong as "my instincts tell me
that..." It leaves you in the same limbo as the person you are
arguing with. Okrandian corpus did not prohibit the wild use of
{-ghach}. Proechel thought it did not prohibit the wild use of
verbs as nouns any time he wanted to. Others thought it did not
prohibit the use of {nuq} as an adjectival question word
meaning "which". Krankor thought it meant you could use whole
sentences compacted into the two sides of comparative
structures and was greatly disappointed to be told otherwise.

This is not to say that this argument counts for nothing. It
merely counts for very nearly nothing and is unquestionably
your weakest argument here. That doesn't leave you with no
argument. Each of your first three arguments have problems, but
they have some degree of merit as well. This fourth one is at
best a parenthetical remark. It is not an argument.

> Although usefullness is no criterion (who decides what is useful and
> what is a luxury in a language, and who decides what luxuries a language
> can do without?), the construction is useful.  Its purpose with 1st and
> 2nd person subjects is the same as its purpose with 3rd person subjects:
> to provide more information about the subject contained in the verb.

The problem with it is that in the vast majority of cases, the
identities of first and second persons are quite well known.
The speaker is first person. The person or persons addressed
are second person. Participants in the communication generally
know those identities. Redundantly expressing them within an
unrelated sentence is not a common Klinogn style.

> If you say {legh}, the entire universe of persons is a possible subject.
> If you say {legh yaS}, you've narrowed it down.  If you say {maHagh},
> the entire inclusive 'we' universe could be the subject.  If you say
> {maHagh tlhInganpu'}, you've narrowed it down.

Nope. It is the same first person plural either way, and you
are taking away another opportunity to belt out {tlhIngan maH!}
which few Klingons will pass up. {tlhIngan maH 'ej maHagh!}

> Sure, you wouldn't need this construction often, and yes, there are
> other ways to say it.  You could also say {yaS ghaH. legh.} for
> {legh yaS}, but if an alternative existed, why would you want to?

The third person is simply a larger world and as we speak, in
the middle of a sentence, we may shift around to different
third person entities, but in a sentence, there is only one
first person and only one second person. These entities may be
singular or plural, but during a communication, the bounds of
first and second person do not change. That's one of the basic
environmental truths about language in general when one
addresses the issue of person. {legh. legh yaS. HoD legh yaS.}
The only reason to not express the explicit noun for third
person is that context makes that person's identity clear.

First and second person already imply a context identifying
those members. You are not identifying with an explicit noun
for first or second person. You are merely describing members
of the group. That is not the usual function of an explicit
noun as subject or object. I suppose it is the function in some
cases, providing a degree of specificity to an otherwise vague
pronoun. If you mean "An officer sees" rather than "The officer
sees", then {yaS} describes the person who sees rather than
identifies him, but this just feels weak.

> Here's exactly why we shouldn't rely on subjective "it doesn't feel
> right" statements. 

Ouch.

> I've been studying Klingon for over 6 years now,
> I like to think my writing style is clear, accurate and pretty 
> conservative.  This particular construction doesn't seem weak or 
> silly to me.  In fact, it seems so logical and natural that I never 
> considered it could be controversial, and I am surprised at your reaction.  
> I know your skills in Klingon are formidable.  Relying
> just on "instincts" has led us to an impasse.  I'd like to put the
> discussion on a firmer footing.

Good. I don't think your argument is completely without merit,
though it is not nearly as compelling as you seem to think it
is.

My current position is that I likely won't correct you if you
use this. Instead, I'll just ignore the superfluous noun and
understand your sentence, though it will feel somewhat
confusing. After I filter out the noun, it will make sense.

I will not use this construction and if anyone asks me if I
think it is okay, I'll tell them that I think it is wrong. My
gut tells me it is wrong and there is nothing in canon to
convince me otherwise.

My main argument against it is this:

1. It is definitely unnecessary.

2. Sentences that use it are confusing. The extra noun at the
end sounds third person and seems to disagree with the subject
implied by the prefix. I cannot absorb it without looking at
the sentence several times. Since all that preceeds the noun
fails to explain its function in the sentence, I reflexively
expect something to follow the noun to explain what it is doing
in the sentence. Nothing follows and I have go back and look at
the sentence again to try to parse this noun into it.

> -- ter'eS

charghwI'

Back to archive top level