tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 05 13:54:41 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lopno' - looking for general comment
ja' Qov:
> I've taken this out of the KLBC as I invite others with a feel for the
> language to help me with a problem I haven't seen before.
>
> ---Christiane Scharf wrote:
> > ja' Qov:
> > > ---Christiane Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > jang Qov:
> > > > > ---Christiane Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > qaSpa' lopno' not jupvam vISuchpu'. juHDaj Daq
> > > > > > vIDellu'.
> > > > >
> > > > > DoSlIj vIlegh 'ej bIpabHa'chu' jIjatlhlaHbe', 'ach mIwvetlh
> > > > > vIchupbe'.
> > > > > <jIHvaD juHDaj Daq Dellu'> yIjatlh. mIwvam nap law' mIwlij
> > > > > nap puS.
> > > >
> > > > qatlh? Why is this simpler? After all, my version is even shorter.
> > >
> > > Ok, reasons.
> > > 1. It's true that a verb prefix can refer to a first or second
> person
> > > indirect object instead of a direct object, but when you already
> have
> > > /-lu'/ reversing the prefix anyway, it's dubious.
> >
> > {-lu'} is dubious in any case.
>
> Why do you say that? Why did you write it if it was dubious?
"dubious" was probably the wrong word. Let's say {-lu'} is _strange_ because
it uses the prefixes differently.
>
>
> > However, if the prefix indicates a first
> > person object and there is an additional third person object before
> the
> > verb, the relations are clear, aren't they?
>
> Not at once, and not as clear as it could be.
Oh well...
>
>
> > > 2. /juHDajDaq vIDellu'/ means 'I was described at her house' and
> > > the only difference is the space, or a slight stress difference
> when
> > > spoken.
> >
> > True, but when written down, the difference is obvious.
> > (I'd probably not manage to construct something with {-lu'} when
> > talking...)
>
> I guess you have neater handwriting and non-proportional fonts. I
> wouldn't call a difference that consisted only of a space "obvious."
> And anything written down can be read aloud.
Of course it can be read aloud, and I confess I didn't consider any
ambiguities in _sound_ when I wrote that sentence.
>
>
> > > 3. Usually the verbs where the 'prefix trick' is used are the ones
> > > where the literal interpretation sounds funny anyway. So /HInob/ is
> > > likely to be interbreted as "give it to me" while /HIDel/ without
> > > context obviously means "describe me."
> >
> > But the third person direct object comes first, anyway. So the first
> > person prefix must refer to the indirect object, right?
>
> Well yes, if this construction is allowed at all, but grammar
> shouldn't be something you have to figure out by process of
> elimination. Given that you were using the indefinite subject and the
> apparent object didn't match the prefix, then the object had to be jIH
> and what's left the indirect object. It *was* a process of
> elimination. I don't count the fact that I figure something out as a
> heavy vote for its validity.
I assumed I could use the prefix trick on any verb. I didn't know it
probably is restricted.
>
>
> > > 4. You have to wait until the final syllable of the entence before
> > > knowing what word plays what role in the sentence.
> >
> > You always have to wait for the final syllable in a {-lu'} sentence.
>
> 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.
vIDellu' - I was described her address. (I'm not sure if this is correct
English, but "I was given the book" is.) -- Her address was described to me.
Just changing from active to passive. Maybe it's because I was the one who
made up that sentence, but I don't have any trouble in understanding it.
(Whether it is really grammatical is a different question) Perhaps if I'd
read a message of someone else and encountered a similar sentence it would
be different, I don't know.
>
>
> 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.
qay'be'. Certainly easier when hearing the sentence, but (jIHvaD ;-) ) only
a little difference when reading 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'/. 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:
Time to cut for me. This is grammarians' stuff.
> [...]
>
>
> > > > chupta'ghachlIj cha'DIch vIparHa'. (I think I've used {-ghach}
> for the
> > > > first time here... chollaw' Seng)
> > >
> > > Shrug. I would have said /qechlIj cha'DIch/, and would translate
> > > /chupta'ghachlIj/ first as "your having suggested it" or something,
> > > referring to the act. That's me. I have no idea what a Klingon
> > > would say.
> >
> > No comment.
>
> That being an explicit 'no comment' I'll explain myself more.
> /-ghach/ seems to nominalize the action it's attached to, but not so
> much to make the verb a noun, but the verb + suffix a noun. The
> suffix on /chup/ being /ta'/, the noun appears to refer to the
> deliberate accomplishment of suggesting. As /nobHa'ghach/ isn't a
> commendation that's undone, but rather the discommendation, and
> /QublaHghach/ is the "ability to think" not "a thought that can be," I
> read /chupta'/ as "having suggested" and not "a suggestion that's
> complete."
I had got your point.
>
>
> > > You're right. ghom is singular. I read the first sentence as
> > > correct, then cached its subject in my head as "they" instead of
> "it."
> > > DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
> >
> > Wow! I caught Qov making an error. I'll mark the day in my calendar.
>
> You'll need a bigger calendar soon. I was talking to Captain Krankor
> recently: The conversation began with me "hipchecking" him. I don't
> remember the exact words, but part went something like this:
>
> Qov: qaStaHvIS wa' DIS BG jIHtaH. tugh jIpaj.
> Qanqor: bIpaj net chaw'pa' DujeynIS ghojwI'.
DujeynISchu'chugh ghojwI', ghaytan reH BG SoHtaH.
> Qov: mujeynIS'a' ghojwI'wI''e'? chay' mujeynIS? Qagh vItu'be'bogh
> tu'nIS'a'? pIj qaS.
> Qanqor: chaq. qoj Dutojchu'nIS qoj Du*hipcheck*chu'nIS ...
Is there some joke in this which I do not get because I don't have a clear
idea of what "hipchecking" is???
>
> ==
>
> Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
HovqIj