tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 04 09:21:45 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC challenge
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC challenge
- Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 10:11:58 -0400
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:13:40 -0400 David Trimboli
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >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.]
[...]
>> 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}.
That's an interesting theory. It's entirely theoretical, of course.
"Okrand would've used this." wejpuH.
>> {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?
Noun.
Me Tarzan.
What grammatical role would you ascribe to the word "Tarzan" in this widely
known example?
>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".
On the other hand, one might want to avoid your fixation on the word
{tu'lu'}. The word is just fine, but your way isn't the only way.
>> 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.
Quite correct, but you said "'Honor is everywhere' (LITERALLY, since that
interpretation uses {Dat} as the direct object instead of the locative)."
You failed to consider the possibility that {Dat} was used 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'.
Again, I fail to see why what YOU consider to be the best sentence should be
touted and praised above something else. If someone wants to say {meHDaq
ghaHtaH HoD'e'}, do you wince? I say, more power to 'em!
SuStel
Stardate 99506.1