tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 05 13:52:12 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: lopno' - looking for general comment

From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>

>You always have to wait for the final syllable in any sentence, but
>it's easier if you can do much of the processing as you go along.
>Else you run out of RAM and get an overflow error in your head.
>
>> This probably looks like I love arguing, but I just want
>clarification.
>
>Not a problem. If I don't have to explain things in intimate detail I
>don't learn much from doing it.  If new people didn't come along and
>argue for new things we wouldn't make nearly as much progress as we
>have.
>
>This is to clarify what I mean by waiting until the last syllable:
>
>Here's your sentence, processed in the order you recive the syllables.
>juHDaq Daq - her house's place -- her address
>vI- - I did something to her address
>vIDel - I described her address
>vIDellu' - I was described ... wait a moment ... now the object of the
>sentence must be /jIH/, so what does that thing in the object position
>do?  Before I can understand the sentence I have to go back and change
>what I've already parsed about it.
>
>My sentence:
>jIH - me
>jIHvaD - for me, to me
>juHDaj Daq - her house's place, her address, something was done to it
>for me
>Del -  someone described it for me
>Dellu' - and the describer is not specified.
>
>At no point in the reading or hearing of this second sentence do I
>have to back up and re-evaluate everything I've already heard.

Aha!  I've suddenly realized why I don't like this approach!

It doesn't work that way!

At least, it doesn't for me.  I have no problem parsing {-lu'}.  It's no
different than parsing any subject.  I also don't have any trouble parsing
relative clauses attached to the far side of Type 5'd nouns.  Here's why:

I digest conversation in phrases, not words or syllables or elements.

For instance, if someone said to me {qachDaq vIchenmoHpu'bogh jIQam}, I
wouldn't digest

(1) qach
(2) qachDaq
(3) qachDaq vI-
etc.

I'd hear all of {qachDaq vIchenmoHpu'bogh} first.  I'd notice {qach} and
think of a building, but {-Daq} wouldn't even register as a specific thing.
I'd just have a sense of "locative."

Next would come the supposedly tricky part, {vIchenmoHpu'bogh}.  I don't
really have any problem with verb suffixes; when someone says a Klingon verb
to me, I simply know what they means without even realizing which suffixes
I've listened to (rather like {-Daq}, above).  I have a sense of "which I
have done" (the verb prefix always ties in very closely in my brain with the
suffixes) and a sense of "caused this to happen."  The only thing I have to
actually think about is the meaning of the verb itself.  In the case of a
common verb, like {chen}, I don't even have to think about that.

Now, my example sentence is not ambiguous, but you will get turned around if
you try to digest it one element at a time.  Fortunately, we usually speak
in phrases, and relative clauses are usually very closely associated with
their head noun.  I cannot, of course, say that this is how it is with
*Klingons*, but I know it's how it works with humans speaking Klingon, and
they phrase things.  So, you get a subconscious cue as to when the phrase
ends.

It is at this point that I'll actually deduce the meaning of {qachDaq
vIchenmoHpu'bogh} in its entirety.  The process goes like this, and in these
steps (with no intervening steps):

(1) qachDaq -- "In the building."
(2) vIchenmoHpu'bogh -- "In the building which I have made."

There are no conscious steps besides these.  The verb is not broken down in
my mind.

Finally, comes the main verb: {jIQam}.  No problem there.  One step:
comprehension.  {jI-} is a commonly used prefix, so there's no problem
there.

In fact, I found that at qep'a' vaghDIch whenever I didn't know a vocabulary
word someone had used, I could often discover the meaning simply by
comparing the context and the verb affixes.  Since I didn't have to think
about the affixes, I looked to see what sort of meaning needed to be put in
the blank, and I figured it out.

All of this is to show why I don't particularly agree with the "one element
at a time" analysis of Klingon.  I don't think language is processed that
way in the brain.  I don't know how it *does* work, but I'd bet there's a
buffer somewhere which saves things you hear until you get enough of it so
that you can then work on it.

>The crux of this is:  I know that /jIHvaD juHDaj Dellu'/ obeys the
>rules of Klingon.  I don't know that the prefix trick works with
>/-lu'/.

It works according to strict interpretation of the "prefix trick" which
we've been given.  Whether it's actually allowed is another story.

>The two sentences having identical meanings, I choose the one
>that is more likely to be correct.  As I said in my original response,
>I can't say that your way breaks rules, but I don't recommend it.
>
>Here is are two issues I invite genreral comment on:
>
>1. Can *any* verb that could be used with /jIHvaD vay' <verb>/ also be
>used with /vay' HI<verb>/?

This would appear to be so, again, according to a strict interpretation of
the rules.

>taj HInob
>chovnatlh HI'ang
>qagh ghovut
>mIw qaDel
>ra'wI' SarI'
>targh nuje'
>
>I'm not all that comfortable with the latter ones on the list, because
>the reasonable meanings of isolated /qaDel/ /SarI'/ and /nuje'/ hold
>my attention.

One possibility is that if there *is* an object on a verb whose prefix
doesn't match it, then you *must* be employing the prefix trick.

What worries me more is using the prefix trick on verbs of quality:

qalI'
I am useful to you.

Ick.

Strict interpretation would seem to allow it.  Common sense does not.

>I'm going to stay with my argument that the prefix
>trick works best with verbs where the direct object is rarely the
>first or second person.  This is in line with the fact that the prefix
>trick doesn't work/isn't used with a third person indirect object,
>even though */tajmey wInob/ would be unambiguous for /ghaHvaD tajmey
>DInob/.
>
>2. Can the "prefix trick" of using a verb prefix to refer to the
>indirect object instead of the direct object also be used when the
>prefix has already been reversed with /-lu'/.
>
>taj vInoblu'
>voDleH lIngta' Dajablu'
>De' bomuchlu'
>
>Again I'm uncomfortable with the easily understood verbs not meaning
>what they seem to.  When one and two are combined I don't like it at
>all.  Opinions and arguments?

It's icky, but there's no evidence either way.  I sure hope it's not allowed
normally.

SuStel
Stardate 98593.2

Back to archive top level