tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 19 11:11:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:06:28 -0600
At 08:48 AM 11/19/97 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
>According to Terrence Donnelly:
>> >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.
>
But my point would be that they really are non-arguments; all anyone
else can do to counter them is say "Well, I don't agree".
The issue then becomes an unseemly "battle of the credentials". Until
Okrand spoke, your instincts could be at most guidelines for you
and for those who respect your opinions. They couldn't prove
anything.
[...]
>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.
>
Perhaps I spoke too rashly. It's not like this particular construction
is a cornerstone of my Klingon writing style, but I always believed it
was valid for the reasons I gave. I asked if SuStel had
a source for his opinion because I was surprised by it. Instead of
a real answer, I got more of this "it just doesn't feel right" stuff.
I certainly respect the opinions of the experienced speakers on this
list, but I'd like us to use instincts as an argument of last resort,
not the first weapon we lay our hands on. As I noted in a related
post, none of us are native Klingon speakers. I think this leaves
at least a little margin of error in our Klingon instincts.
[...]
>> 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.
>
It's also easy to see why it only works with 1st and 2nd persons:
if you tried it with a 3rd person prefix, there'd be no way to
tell that an indirect object was intended. Once the construction
was allowed at all, it almost _had_ to work this way. It doesn't
say anything about the possible parallels between the behavior of
these persons as subjects.
>> 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.
You're right; I included it for completeness. In the future, I'll
leave that as an unspoken given.
[...]
>
>> 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.
>
All this means is that this construction wouldn't apply in the vast
majority of cases. I can still see times when it could be useful.
{rInpu'DI' may', raQ wIcheHmoH. maQong DoywI'pu'. maSop ghunghwI'pu'.}
Kind of poetic, maybe, and not often called for, but definitely useful
in certain situations.
[...]
>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.
I can only repeat again "Not always." I can easily envision situations
in which the speaker needs to clearly identify who "you" is in an
utterance (as in picking a subset out of a larger group) or when the
speaker might want to distinguish between an inclusive and exclusive
"we".
>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.
>
Right, and that would be the same reason for including an
explicit noun in the cases noted above: to make it clear
who exactly was meant by "you" or "we". After all, Klingons
may be inaccurate, but they are never imprecise. 8+)
>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.
This may be a good argument. I don't completely understand it,
and must ponder its implications.
[...]
> 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.
>
This argument I consider irrelevant. The only person who can make
decisions about what the language needs or doesn't need is Okrand.
You may consider something unnecessary, but that doesn't negate the
possibility of its existence. I often think mosquitos are unnecessary,
but that doesn't make them go away.
>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.
>
I could say that this is just a result of your unfamilarity with
the construction. I'd wager that there was a lot about Klingon
grammar that was confusing when you first started learning it.
But I certainly appreciate your comments. I'll continue to hold
my opinion, but not use this construction (or at least, not much),
and maybe someday Okrand will tell us if its legal.
>
>charghwI'
>
-- ter'eS