tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 27 10:41:15 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qID
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:42:35 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> mujang charghwI':
> >> jIHagh, 'ach chaq qIDvam rurbogh ghItlhvaD Daq pIm wISamnIS.
> >
> >"I laugh, but perhaps we must find a different place for the
> >benefit of the manuscript which resembles this joke."?
> >
> >moH pab.
>
> vuDlIj neH 'oHba'.
>
> >Okay, fine. I'm a prude. Okrand gave us two rather
> >simple examples of relative clauses with only one noun in them
> >that had {-Daq} on the noun. I don't like extending that to
> >relative clauses with two nouns, one of which has {-vaD} tacked
> >on to it.
>
> bIparchugh SoH, jISaHnIS'a' jIH?
We need a Klingon word for "attitude". Since I have exhibited
rather challenging ones quite a few times, obviously, I need to
be tolerant when I encounter one.
> I don't share your dislike for
> this so-called "extension". Like the canon examples, it puts the
> syntactic marker on the head noun of the relative clause.
In the examples, there was no other noun available to be head
noun, so it is not established that applying the syntactic
marker marks one of two available head nouns as the head noun
for the relative clause. If you think it did, then, well, you
are making that up. There is nothing in canon to back up your
opinion.
We know that {-'e'} can mark the head noun. We know that {-Daq}
can be applied to a noun we already know is the head noun in
order to make the entire relative clause a locative. That is all
we know.
We do not know that {-Daq} marks a head noun. We do not know
that {-vaD} can be applied to a noun we already recognize to be
the head noun of a relative clause. These are two quite unproven
extensions of known Klingon grammar and your sentence depends
upon both of these unproven grammatical constructions, and
extends even those to posit that {-vaD} can be used on a head
noun of a relative clause and it marks one of two present nouns
as the head noun of that relative clause.
So, yes, I rather confidently believe that you have extended
known Klingon grammar. You have boldly gone where no one has
gone before. Your confidence does not convince me that you are
right.
When I saw Okrand's two examples, I winced because even though
the examples themselves were relatively clear, if relative
clauses were stretched farther in this direction (as you are now
stretching it), very quickly we can wind up with sentences that
are quite impenetrable. I do consider it to be ugly grammar. The
benefit we get from it is small, and the cost quite a bit
greater. I think we are better off backing down from this kind
of brave new grammar.
> There
> is ample precedent for relative clauses with two nouns, and there
> is no reason I can see to forbid marking one of them with a type
> 5 suffix besides {-'e'}.
Recognize that you are making up new grammar when you say that.
We do not have any examples of Okrand using any Type 5 noun
suffix except {-'e'} to mark the head noun of a relative clause.
He often doesn't even mark them at all, but he definitely has
never marked a head noun with anything but {-'e'}. The two
examples given do not mark the noun with {-Daq}. The only noun
available to be head noun in both examples are the nouns that
happen to have {-Daq} on them.
> >It can be deciphered with great effort,...
>
> I'm obviously too close to the problem to see it. From my point
> of view, there's no more effort in "deciphering" {qIDvam rurbogh
> ghItlhvaD} than there is in understanding {meQtaHbogh qachDaq}.
>
> >...but it seems
> >like an odd looseness with grammar for one who spent a couple
> >years rebelling against the prefix shortcut for indirect
> >objects...
>
> jIlotlhbe'; vIyajchu'be' neH. I thought it was a lazy mirroring
> of English at first. It merely took me a while to see the usage
> in a larger context.
bIlotlhbejpu'. You made more than a few proud pronouncements
that you did not accept this lazy mirroring, you thought it was
incorrect and you refused to use it. You advised beginners to
shun it as well. That is a bit stronger than merely imperfectly
understanding it.
We each take our honest understanding of this language and try
to share our views so that we can share a language that we all
understand well. We hold our torches out toward what we take to
be the shadows and sometimes we inadvertently ignite tender
parts of our fellow speakers.
The ensuing battles are sometimes entertaining, sometimes
frustrating and sometimes, well, just a little silly. Still, it
is the way we settle the way we'll use the language.
I really don't see any justification for using a relative clause
as an indirect object, especially if it has multiple nouns
available to be the head noun. Okrand established that we can
use relative clauses as locatives. His very simple examples open
the door to some rather ugly ambiguity, and the benefit is
limited enough that even he has only found two events which
tempted him to use them.
It is not so much that I think your specific example is not
comprehensible. I wish I had the entire sentence instead of just
the clause to work with...
Okay, your example basically boils down to:
<noun> <verb>bogh <noun>vaD verb.
The first noun is object of the relative clause. The second noun
is head noun of the relative clause, subject of the relative
clause and indirect object of the main clause.
But what if you wanted to use the direct object of the relative
clause as the head noun?
<noun>vaD <verb>bogh noun verb.
The first noun is now either:
1. Indirect object of the main verb
or
2. Indirect object of the relative clause.
In either case, the second noun is now:
A. Subject of the relative clause.
or
B. Direct object of the main verb.
If condition 2, then the second noun can also be head noun of
the relative clause, so conditions A and B would both be true.
And if the first noun were indirect object of the main verb, but
not part of the relative clause, again, the second noun becomes
the head noun of the relative clause and both A and B are true.
Let's look at an example.
HoDvaD HoHbogh SuvwI' So'moH Qagh.
This might mean:
1. The mistake caused the captain, for whom the warrior killed,
to hide (something).
2. The mistake caused the warrior, who killed for the captain,
to hide (himself).
3. The mistake caused the captain to hide the warrior who kills.
4. The mistake caused the captain who was killed by the warrior
to hide (something).
Grammatical explanations of the translations:
1. "Hide" is transitive, its direct object is implied, "captain"
is head noun and main verb's indirect object
2. "Hide" is intransitive, "captain" is indirect object of
relative clause, not head noun of relative clause and not
indirect object of main verb.
3. Captain is indirect object of main verb and does not
participate in the relative clause.
4. "Hide" and "kill" are transitive, "captain" is head noun of
relative clause and indirect object of main verb.
Is this confusing enough? It takes no more liberty with the
grammar than you do. It is quite ugly. This is what I see when I
see anyone do what you are doing with the grammar. This is why I
call it an extension and while I will certainly accept it if I
ever see Okrand pushing us toward this kind of garbage, but
until he does so, I will resist such wretchedness.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI' 'utlh