tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 04 16:04:58 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
ja' charghwI':
>Now, you want to make up your own grammar out of pieces that
>ignore that one example we have of a noun with {-vaD} and a verb
>with {-moH}. I don't follow. And THAT is why I can only
>translate this example one way. I do it the way Okrand presented
>it to us.
No, I don't want to make up any grammar. I merely want to interpret
a phrase using the information in The Klingon Dictionary, which does
give a way to interpret {targhvaD qaSopmoH} and {tIqwIjvaD qaDuQmoH}
without any difficulty whatsoever. That we have a later example of
{X-vaD Y Z-moH} shouldn't wipe out the ability to read {A-vaD B-moH}
using the earlier tools.
>The exceptions you want:
>
>1. We have a noun with {-vaD} in front of a verb with {-moH} and
>you want to interpret it differently than the only such example
>we have from Okrand.
The example we have happens to have an explicit object. The phrase
I'm interpreting differently does not.
>2. We have a verb that can clearly act transitively and it has a
>transitive-indicating prefix, and you want to assume it is being
>used intransitively with the prefix shortcut, even though there
>is no explicit Direct Object noun which can provide the
>disagreement in person between the Direct Object and the prefix.
But you translated {qaSopmoH} as "I cause you to eat" also. Isn't
that what you're complaining about here?
>3. You want to have two different indirect objects tagged to one
>verb, interpreted the way you want it interpreted.
No, I'm looking at a *single* indirect object added to a verb. In
any other situation, the interpretation of {V} doesn't change when
it becomes {N-vaD V}. You want to insist on throwing out the idea
{qa-V-moH} and changing it drastically when it is {N-vaD qa-V-moH}.
I'm just not seeing any reason to forbid interpreting {qa-V-moH} in
a consistent way whether or not {N-vaD} is in front of it.
>It's just too wide a stretch, especially when it is contrasted
>with what I'm doing. I'm taking the only example we have from
>Okrand with a similarly transitive verb and interpreting it the
>way he did. The only exception I'm making to his example is that
>his example had an explicit Direct Object noun and this example
>doesn't. That's not much of a stretch. I prefer to stretch less.
My take on this is that you're stretching more both by making such
a big distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs, and by
closing the door on the bare {qa-V-moH} interpretation when {N-vaD}
gets added to the sentence.
>> >> Only one of them doesn't make any sense to me,...
>> >
>> >Which one?
>>
>> {targh qaSopmoH} is right on the edge of making sense. The longer I
>> look at it, the more sense it makes -- until just before it becomes
>> sensible enough for me to accept, and then I lose it. I can't yet
>> make the familar "prefix trick" work well with {-moH} this way.
>
>The part that baffles me is that you have problems with the use
>of the prefix shortcut here when there is a clear disagreement
>between the second person prefix-indicated object and the
>explicit third person direct object noun. THIS IS THE
>DISAGREEMENT THAT MAKES THE PREFIX SHORTCUT WORK WELL.
>
>You DON'T have a problem interpreting a prefix shortcut when
>there is no explicit Direct Object noun at all. Meanwhile, there
>is no disagreement then, and when I look at it, I don't see a
>shortcut. I see an indicated Direct Object.
The problem hits me when I try to decide exactly when in the meaning
the {-moH} comes in with a second-person object prefix. It's the
combination of that prefix and suffix that spins me around in circles
on this particular phrase. I can't resolve it unambiguously. I can
see the {targh qaSopmoH} as either "I cause you to eat the targ" or
"I cause the targ to eat you" -- but because neither of these feels
particularly powerful, I really don't see it as *either* of them.
>targh qaSopmoH = SoHvaD targh vISopmoH. It's that simple. That's
>how the prefix shortcut works. Then we interpret what {SoHvaD
>targh vISopmoH} means. From the one example we have from Okrand,
>it means, "I cause you to eat the targ." That's pretty much
>formulaic. It is odd. I won't argue with that. But it works.
>Okrand's example shows a clear formula for how to handle a
>transitive verb plus {-moH}.
I dunno. You're telling me that two pieces of grammar that aren't
exactly totally transparent by themselves can be combined to tell us
how to say something clearly. I consider myself to have a pretty
good handle on what is clear and what isn't, and this particular set
of grammatical combinations just doesn't fit well in my brain.
>> ... If you're talking about my eccentric use
>> of "prefix shortcut" to describe how I view the way {-moH} works,
>> be aware that I'm explicitly stretching the concept beyond the way
>> Okrand has explained it. (I'm not contradicting anything he said,
>> just proposing an underlying mechanism that generates exactly the
>> same things he explained while also generating other things we see.)
>
>But your mechanism has a clear flaw. The prefix shortcut is
>known to work only with first or second person direct object
>indicated by the prefix, disagreeing with an explicit third
>person direct object. {bIQ vItujmoH.} "I heat the water."
>Clearly, this is a valid sentence. {vI-} is not a prefix that
>can be used as a shortcut to an indirect object. There's no way
>that {bIQ} is the indirect object of {vItujmoH}. It is obviously
>the direct object.
I do have to assume one additional thing beyond what Okrand said in
order to justify my understanding of {-moH}. Instead of the prefix
having to disagree with the explicit third-person object, I consider
that it can also disagree with a "no-object" intransitive verb. It
is not worth debating further, as it has no real benefit in terms of
making communication happen; it's just a {QInDaq mI'laH HoSDo' 'ar}
thing.
>So, Okrand's grammar for transitive verbs plus {-moH} is not
>related to the grammar for intransitive verbs plus {-moH} by the
>prefix shortcut. You want that to work, but it doesn't.
I think it's the very fact that they are unrelated that keeps me from
ignoring the "I make you eat for the benefit of the targ" possibility.
>In fact, the grammar is simply different for transitive and
>intransitive verbs when {-moH} is involved. The same can be said
>for {-lu'}. We just have to learn the grammar as it is and not
>try to make it logically link where it fails to link.
I'm going to keep disagreeing with you -- I don't see the grammar
being substantially different in either the {-moH} or {-lu'} case.
You know my ideas on {-moH} and you're free to ignore them, but I
have never quite understood what you're claiming is different about
{ba'lu'} and {Soplu'}, for example.
-- ghunchu'wI'