tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 03 09:03:17 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC challenge
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC challenge
- Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 12:05:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:13:40 -0400 David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>
> >> > Dat batlh 'oH 'ach DaSamnIS.
> >> (assuming it was supposed to be <<Dat 'oH batlh'e'>>)
> >Dat batlh tu'lu'.
> >
> >That is better than my "Everywhere, is honor" and your sentence
> >which can be translated either as "Everywhere, honor is," or
> >"Honor is everywhere," [LITERALLY, since that interpretation
> >uses {Dat} as the direct object instead of the locative.]
>
> Please forgive me if this has already been gone over to death (and ignore my
> message if it has: I'm behind on the mailing list).
>
> While I certainly agree that {Dat batlh tu'lu'} is the best sentence,
> there's nothing wrong with {Dat 'oH batlh'e'}. What's the grammatical
> difference between that and, say, {nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'}?
I don't disagree with any of this, though I honestly think
{nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'} was probably written by Okrand before he
invented the use of {tu'lu'} and if the earlier example wasn't
so widely accepted, he'd probabaly say {nuqDaq puchpa' tu'lu'}
or even more agressively Klingon {nuqDaq puchpa' vItu'laH}.
> {Dat} is not a
> direct object because (a) I'd hesitate to call a noun in front of any
> pronoun an object of any kind (though pronouns do have subjects),
tlhIngan maH.
So, what grammatical role would you ascribe to the word
{tlhIngan} in this widely known canon example? There are many
more like it. In fact, there are a LOT more examples of pronouns
acting as verbs with direct objects than there are of pronouns
acting as verbs with subjects. The ONLY examples that I can
recall of pronouns having subjects but not objects are the
examples talking about where something is, and pretty much all
of those examples could be rewritten with {tu'lu'} and probably
sound better, avoiding the English fixation on the verb "to be".
> and (b)
> {Dat} never takes a Type 5 noun suffix anyway.
While this is true, it is also true that it is quite acceptable
to use {Dat} as a noun, not necessarily as a locative.
> I have no problem with sentences like
>
> meHDaq ghaHtaH HoD'e'.
> pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH loDHom'e'.
>
> nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?
> letlh retlhDaq 'oH puchpa''e'.
While I don't have a PROBLEM with them, I don't see them as
shining examples in any way superior to what they could have
easily been:
meHDaq HoD tu'lu'.
pa'DajDaq loDHom tu'lu'.
nuqDaq puchpa' tu'lu'?
letlh retlhDaq puchpa' tu'lu'.
> SuStel
> Stardate 99500.7
charghwI' 'utlh
Stardate 99503.5