tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 25 13:18:04 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qama'
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:17:43 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:24:24 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/24/1999 10:05:17 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << The Klingon Dictionary disagrees with you (again). The relevant section
> is small; I will state it in its entirety here.
>
> TKD section 4.1. "Pronominal prefixes", page 32:
> | Each Klingon verb begins with a single prefix that indicates
> | who or what is performing the action described by the verb
> | and, when relevant, who or what is the recipient of that
> | action. In other words, Klingon verb prefixes indicate both
> | the subject and the object of the sentence.
>
> The next section contains a sentence that underscores the idea:
> | Note that both the subject and the object are combined into a
> | single prefix.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> >>
> =====================
>
> No, TKD points out that I am correct.
bISuv DaneHba' 'ach bIr qullIj. nuqDaq TKD mu'mey Dalo'bogh
tu'lu'?
> You are misinterpreting what TKD says,
> probably because you have not had the courses in linguistics that my college
> training forced me to have.
jISaHbe'. *Okrand* mu'mey vIyajlaHchu'.
> TKD p32. I do not need to tell you what it says. You have copied it
> correctly from the dictionary.
>
> You are misinterpreting the word "indicates." The prefix is NOT the subject
> and/or the object; the prefix only indicates who or what is doing the action
> of the verb to whom or what.
Hmmm. Who or what is doing the action? Sounds a lot like the
subject to me. Action of the verb to whom or what. Sounds a lot
like the object. This is a rather weak argument.
You can classify this however you like with whatever terms you
like using whatever apparent authority you like (since you are
not the only person here with linguistic training even though
you are the only person here arguing this point).
jIqawchu'chugh, the example we were discussing was {chay'
jura'?} The question was whether or not the direct object of
{ra'} would be the person being commanded.
Whether you want to call the "us" implied with the prefix {ju-}
a real direct object or merely the "indicated" direct object,
the point is still that the direct object of {ra'} is quite
obviously the person addressed by the command.
Perhaps there will be some usage from Okrand indicating that
there are other valid direct objects of {ra'} as well, like the
command itself, or the pronoun {'e'}, but certainly this shows
that people being addressed by the command can act as direct
objects of {ra'}.
Your quibbling over the terms here is not all that interesting.
Okrand didn't write Klingon to be like native American
langauges. He may have borrowed traits from some of them, but
your apparent assumption that he was sitting next to you in your
linguistics class and learned the same terminology that you did
and has held exactly the same understanding of it as you have
all these years is a bit of a stretch.
Most likely, when he says, "Klingon verb prefixes indicate both
the subject and the object of the sentence," he means pretty
much what the rest of us think he means. Your class probably
does not give you the unique ability to correctly interpret
those words.
> Unless MO says that Klingon is so unlike the
> American Indian languages of the Southwest that these prefixes ARE the subject
> and/or the object, I will continue to believe what my college linguistics
> courses taught me.
"Klingon verb prefixes indicate both the subject and the object
of the sentence."
In the case of {chay' jura'}, the indicated object is the group
of people ready to receive commands. That is enough for me to
fairly confidently assume that people are appropriate direct
objects for {ra'}.
> Take note of TKD p32 "Unlike Klingn nouns, Klingon verbs may take prefixes.
> Thus, if suffix types are indicated as numbers, the structure of a Klingon
> verb is:
>
> PREFIX-VERB-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
>
> The suffixes are NOT numbers. The numbers are NOT suffixes.
I have not heard anyone here argue otherwise.
> Websters dictionary: Indicate: "to direct attention to, to point out, show,
> to denote the probability of, to state in brief, symptoms, to make known
> (indicatus, L.)."
>
> I fear I cannot find that "indicate" means "equals" or "is."
It doesn't have to. When we seek an appropriate direct object of
{ra'}, what we are really looking for is a group of valid nouns
which can act as direct objects. In this case, it is clearly
"indicated" that people receiving commands are valid direct
objects of {ra'}.
Is this really that hard to understand? Or are you merely
picking another fight?
> Okrand has revealed that TKD was written as a "guide" for lay persons to learn
> Klingon imperfectly. He has stated that he has used terms English-speaking
> people would read and understand. I believe that he uses Subject and Object
> in the chart on p33 for clarity of what the pronominal prefixes indicate only.
> The prefixes are still prefixes, not subjects and/or objects.
Klingon really needs an exclammatory that means, "So?" or "And
your point is...?"
I don't care that in {chay' jura'?} someone might interpret
{ju-} to be the subject and object of {ra'} while someone else
thinks it merely "indicates" the subject and object of {ra'}.
What I care about is how to identify a valid noun to act as
direct object of {ra'}. The {ju-} in this example makes it quite
clear that people being commanded form a class of valid direct
objects for the verb {ra'}.
Your attitude in this post is uncalled for. Grabbing for a
source of authority, referring to a college course you took a
few decades ago, lecturing a group which includes others who
also took linguistic courses, and many who are taking them right
now, just isn't going to work.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh.