tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 07 09:51:34 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

On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Robyn Stewart 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Thanks. Because of the acquisition of a delightfully busy life 
these days, I've taken to skipping all KLBC stuff just to do a 
better job of keeping up with the volume.
 
> ---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.

While concise speech is a value for Klingon, clarity gets at 
least an equal value. I agree with Qov that {jIHvaD jUHDaj Daq 
Dellu'} is clear while {juHDaj Daq vIDellu'} is confusing. There 
are instances where I like using the shortcut, unlike some on 
the list. ghunchu'wI' tends to dislike the construction under 
any circumstances. Meanwhile, this particular use of it is, 
well, ugly. How many different people have to say that before it 
becomes accepted?

> > > 2. /juHDajDaq vIDellu'/ means 'I was described at her house' and 
> > > the only difference is the space, or a slight stress difference
> when 
> > > spoken.

Good point.

> > True, but when written down, the difference is obvious.
> > (I'd probably not manage to construct something with {-lu'} when 
> > talking...)

This is a remarkably weak argument. Just look at TKD to see how 
easily blank spaces get accidentally inserted or lost from 
sentences. Meanwhile, if you are writing something that is more 
complex or involved than you would be able to speak, you should 
be willing to accept that perhaps you are not writing something 
that is clear.
 
> > > 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?

The problem here has to do with several different kinds of 
complexity that all coincide in this one little sentence.

juHDaj Daq-

Was that supposed to be {juHwIjDaq} or {juHDaj Daq}? I'm already 
a little confused.

juHDaj Daq vI-

Okay, now, is {Daq} the direct object, or is {juHDajDaq} the 
locative and the prefix refers to a missing direct object 
meaning "him/her/it/them"? This is pretty vague. I'm more 
confused than I started.

juHDaj Daq vIDel-

"I describe her/his/its home's place" or "I described 
it/him/her/them at her/his/its home". I'm still confused.

juHDaj Daq vIDellu'.

Stop the presses. All the things I've thought this sentence 
might mean up to this point are all wrong. Instead of a first 
person subject and either an explicit or implicit third person 
object, I have a vague subject and a couple objects to sort out. 
I have to toss out everything I thought I understood about this 
sentence and start over.

It is okay to use {Daq} like you used it, though that does 
introduce a degree of ambiguity and confusion. It is okay to use 
the prefix shortcut, but it does add a degree of ambiguity and 
confusion. It is okay to use {-lu'}, but that adds a degree of 
ambiguity and confusion.

In a three word sentence, you've piled on three layers of 
ambiguity and confusion. That's a heavy load for three words to 
carry.

The point of all this is that Klingon is not a code. It is a 
language. Just because you can follow all the rules and decode 
the words you said in order to form the English words you 
intended, that doesn't mean you've written something that is 
easy for someone who speaks the language to understand.

Your sentence is not being decoded by a computer following 
grammatical rules. It is being read by people who compile their 
understanding of your sentence as they hear it beginning to end, 
or as they see it, left to right. Your syllables are not blocks 
presented as a whole. There is a time element to it, and the 
meaning is constructed by the listener/reader piece by piece.

This sequential construction of meaning does involve some 
asequential exceptions, but you can't pile too many of those on 
simultaneously or it just plain gets ugly.

Another thing that wasn't pointed out by Qov is that your 
sentence gave us no reason to think your prefix WAS a shortcut 
until we saw {-lu'}. {vI-} is simply not a prefix that behaves 
as a shortcut for indirect object because it indicates third 
person object. We see a third person object {Daq} and we see a 
prefix pointing to a third person object {vI-} and we have no 
reason to suspect that {-lu'} is coming. This is not normal case 
in sentences like {Dochvetlh qanobpu'.}

I would personally never use the prefix shortcut with {-lu'} 
specifically for this reason. If I see a third person object 
noun followed by {che- cho- Du- gho- HI- ju- lI- mu- nI- nu- pI- 
qa- re- Sa- tu- ) (which is more than enough to be on the watch 
for), then I can usually cope with the the prefix shortcut. Try 
to toss in {bo- Da- vI- wI-} followed by {-lu'} and, well, you 
are just expecting too much.

> 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.

I think I'm going to smile for the rest of my life whenever I 
see anybody doing this. It is a fine way to explain the process 
of parsing a sentence. It shows the process within a sequence of 
time rather than seeing the sentence as a static, whole unit 
that is taken in all at once.
 
> 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.

I agree.
 
> 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.

Well, for one thing, while I don't have the article in front of 
me, I think that Okrand said the prefix thing worked "when the 
prefix indicates a first or second person object". {vI-} does 
not satisfy that criterion. You may argue that {vI-} combined 
with {-lu'} has the MEANING of a prefix with a first person 
object, but the fact is, {vI-} does not indicate a first person 
object. It indicates a THIRD person object and fails to work for 
the prefix shortcut. I don't think we are following the actual 
rule here for indirect object prefix shortcuts.
 
> 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>/?
> 
> 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.  

While I agree that these are less obvious than the earlier items 
on the list, I don't have a problem with them. It sounds to me 
like very informal speech. It would work among friends, but I 
would not stand up before the High Counsel and utter much of 
anything on this list. {jIHvaD Y yI-Z) is formal, clear and 
correct. {Y HI-Z} is informal, sounds a little sloppy, but works 
to convey meaning well. It is the kind of rule-bending rule that 
friends don't tend to mind.

Most language has redundancies of grammar built in to reinforce 
meaning and prove that the speaker really is following the 
rules. Klingon has fewer redundancies, hence it allows dropping 
most of the ones that otherwise would occur, like plural noun 
suffixes being dropped when verb prefixes or numbers make it 
obvious that the noun is plural, or like in this case where you 
can represent a first or second person indirect object by not 
using the redundant confirmation that your direct object is 
third person. I'm not as opposed to the prefix shortcut as many 
here, including Qov and ghunchu'wI'. I'm probably less attracted 
to it than Qanqor. I get the impression that he really doesn't 
like {X-vaD Y yI-Z} for any sentence that can be expressed with 
the shortcut (though I don't want to misrepresent him on this).

> 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.  

I think that's an artificial distinction, though it is true that 
clarity will be served and you'll be more immediately understood 
if you followed this artificial rule. I don't think Okrand ever 
said anything suggesting this, nor will he ever.

> 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/.

Not really. The third person indirect object doesn't work 
because there is no tool there to distinguish the difference 
between the shortcut and the explicit statement. Meanwhile, with 
the verbs you are trying to distinguish as not being candidates 
for the shortcut, the shortcut works fine, since you'd use one 
prefix for the shortcut and a different prefix for the explicit 
statement.
 
> 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'

I'm COMPLETELY against this use of {-lu'} plus the prefix 
shortcut. There are no examples in canon, and the sentence has 
one meaning with the {-lu'} and a totally different meaning 
without it, so you can't tell which thing the person is saying 
until they stop talking.

You might think this is always true with {-lu'}, but in fact, 
most useage of {-lu'} has heavy cues that something is afoot 
before {-lu'} ever gets here. This is not the case in any of 
these examples. This is a setup for confusion.

The conflict here is simple:

1. The prefix shortcut rule requires that you never use a prefix 
indicating a third person object or no object. It has to have 
first or second person object.

2. The suffix {-lu'} requires that the prefix always refers to a 
third person singular object, or no object at all.

Tada! They fundamentally conflict. There is no compatibility 
between these two grammatical points.
 
> 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?
 
Well, I disagree with you on point #1, but I have much stronger 
feelings than you do in favor of point #2. {-lu} definitely does 
not work with the prefix shortcut for indirect objects.
 
> 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'.
> 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 ...

I hope he didn't get his suffix order that far off in real 
life...
 
> ==
> 
> Qov - Beginners' Grammarian

charghwI'

Back to archive top level