tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 05 11:28:09 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:43:17 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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}...
>
> 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.
I accept that. I still have problems with your conclusions, but
I do respect your intent and your approach.
Let me explain how I have learned how to use {-moH}. For years,
our only examples were intransitive. Not just transitive with no
specific direct object. Genuinely intransitive. The grammar, as
supplied, had no place to put the noun which was to act as the
direct object. That spot was already in use by the noun which
was the direct object of causation and the subject of the
intransitive verb. There never was an example of a noun with
{-vaD} on it in front of such a construction. Had there been
one, it probably would have been interpreted as you describe it.
Then Okrand introduced a wholly unexplained grammar. He used
{-moH} on a transitive verb and included a noun with {-vaD}. The
noun with {-vaD} was clearly acting as the subject of the root
verb. This was the role usually filled by the noun in the direct
object position. Meanwhile, the noun in the direct object
position was acting as direct object of the verb. This was so
weird. The only way to make sense of it is to accept it as new
grammar. It did not resolve into any kind of extention of the
grammar used on the intransitive verbs with {-moH}.
ghunchu'wI' has incompletely resolved it by reinterpreting all
intransitive verb examples as using the prefix shortcut. This
doesn't hold up, however.
So, I've learned that whenever I see {-vaD} on a noun in front
of a transitive verb with {-moH}, I use the grammar appropriate
for that construction. In both of your examples, the verbs
clearly are not strictly intransitive verbs the way that all
previous canon examples of {-moH} were applied only to strictly
intransitive verbs.
Perhaps someone will pull up examples I've missed and show my
argument here to be badly constructed. I will accept my error if
I have made one.
So, I see {-vaD}, a verb root which clearly can be transitive
and {-moH} and the evidence is more than enough to make me apply
the grammar I understand.
> >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.
True, but the verb roots themselves strongly suggest
transitivity. These are not intransitive verbs. They can be used
with no specific direct object, but even then there is implied
transitivity to some vague direct object. You don't eat without
eating SOMETHING. You don't stab without stabbing something.
Well, I just ran into a counterexample in TKD. Now that I see
it, I remember being bothered by it:
{HIQoymoH} "let me hear (something)"
Still, I suspect if voragh were interested in displaying
examples of usage of {-moH}, I think this kind of
vaguely transitive verb use with {-moH} to be uncommon.
[sigh]
I guess my argument is failing. I want to be honest. I'm not so
much interested in winning as I am in figuring out how this all
works. I thought this was clearcut, but as we progress, I see
that it is muddier than I thought.
> >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?
Yep. I sure was. Meanwhile, there was no noun with {-vaD} to
cause me to switch into the transitive-moH grammatical pattern.
> >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}.
Well, I want to insist on it because that is exactly what Okrand
did when he gave us this troublesome example. He totally
violated all grammatical models for a Klingon sentence using a
verb with {-moH} when he did that. So, I changed my model to
match his usage.
I tend to parse Klingon left to right, as if I were hearing it,
and I don't go back to reparse anything if there is nothing
following it which tells me that what I parsed doesn't seem
accurate.
qaSopmoH.
qa - I <v> you
qaSop - I eat you
qaSopmoH - [reparse the roles of subject and object -- there is
no indirect object] I cause you to eat.
targhvaD qaSopmoH
targhvaD - for the targ's benefit
targhvaD qaSop - I eat you for the benefit of the targ.
targhvaD qaSopmoH - [reevaluate the roles for subject, indirect
object and direct object] I cause the targ to eat you.
It doesn't matter that there is no explicit direct object. We
have an indirect object and an "indicated" direct object and
subject. These fit the grammar for transitive verbs with {-moH}.
When I see how you have evaluated it, I see that you ignored the
first word, evaluated the second word and then added the first
word back in so that {-moH}'s effect on an indirect object was
not evaluated. You just evaluated its effect on a subject and a
direct object. You apparently sequence differently when you
interpret the sentence. Apparently, your model is more visual
and less aural. It is easier to see things in a sequence other
than left to right than it is to "hear" something in an order
other than first to last.
I understand language as something spoken, and writing is just a
method of recording spoken words though simple storage media.
You apparently see written language as something distinct from
spoken language. You use the properties of written language that
do not exist for spoken language when you parse.
Since we parse this in a different sequence, it is natural that
we'd differently conclude its meaning. {-moH} changes the
grammatical role of the nouns surrounding the verb and the
"indicated" pronouns in the prefix. I included the {-vaD} when I
interpreted that role modification and you didn't. I don't
consider {-moH}'s alteration to an indirect object's role to be
optional and you do.
Okrand has not made any definite explanations of this which
could resolve this. He tells us to go by usage, and all examples
of usage fit my description and not yours, but then, he only
gives us one example and that's not much to base an argument on.
I don't see a reason to interpret things differently yet and
likely neither do you. Fortunately, this kind of example will
likely continue to be rare, so misunderstanding will similarly
be rare.
The important thing for me is that we will generally continue to
understand each other. I'm not so fixated on determining
absolute right and wrong when we really can't tell and the need
is rare. I'm mostly interested in communicating clearly.
> 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.
My reason is that in our one example that includes both {-vaD}
and {-moH}, the {-moH} altered the grammatical function of the
noun with {-vaD} and I see no reason to consider that
modification to be optional.
You and I both likely agree that {-moH} always modifies the
grammatical function of the subject and direct object of the
verb. You consider its effect on an indirect object to be
optional. I have no reason to agree. I know that my way works.
I've never seen an example that shows your way to work. If I see
one, I'll definitely change my mind and agree with you that this
is ambiguous.
I hope this is not the case. I do accept ambiguity, but I really
feel a loss when new, unnecessary ambiguity is introduced into
the language.
> >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.
I yield on the argument that I made too much of a big deal out
of transitive vs. intransitive verbs. I did it at the beginning
of this post and instead of editing it out so I'll appear to be
more correct, I'll leave it and admit that I was wrong.
I hold on the argument that the grammatical role-change for an
indirect object of a transitive verb root with {-moH} is
optional. I think it is a strong argument. I don't see the
weakness in it.
> >> >> 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.
When I see this, I parse it thusly:
targh qa- [PREFIX SHORTCUT ALERT! The direct object and prefix
disagree in person, so the prefix indicates the indirect object
instead of the object. So, this becomes: SoHvaD targh vI-] I
<verb> you for the targ.
SoHvaD targh vISop - I eat the targ for you.
SoHvaD targh vISopmoH - [{-moH} ALERT! All three noun roles get
reassigned!] I cause you to eat the targ.
I don't see any other way to interpret it. I can see how if you
consider the grammatical effect that {-moH} has on an indirect
object to be optional, you would see this as ambiguous, since
part of the effect of {-moH} on an indirect object is to make it
the subject of the root verb, while without this, the direct
object is subject of the root verb.
At least now I think I see why we disagree. This is progress. I
hope that through this, now you see why we disagree.
> >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.
Again, I think it has to do with the sequence of our parsing and
the bounds of the effect of {-moH} to have on the nouns in the
sentence. I see it as inclusive. When there is only a subject
and a direct object, the grammar works one way. If there is an
indirect object, it works a different way. The indirect object
is the trigger to my parsing. I have a whole branch of logic
tied to it.
> >> ... 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.
I respect this perspective.
> >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.
Yep. I see. You have optional boundaries for the effects of
{-moH} and I don't.
My concern is that if your interpretation is proven to be
correct, then EVERY instance of {-moH} on a transitive verb will
ALWAYS be ambiguous, because you can always set aside the
indirect object while parsing the effect of {-moH} on the verb,
interpreting the transitive verb as being used intransitively
with a benificiary who is not subject of the root verb. Forget
{qa-}. Your interpretation would equally hold if we had an
explicit direct object.
{targhvaD Qa'Hom vISopmoH}
By my model, this means, "I caused the targ to eat the Qa'Hom."
Your model could also explain it as "I caused the Qa'Hom to eat
for the targ." Do we gain any ability to communicate useful
things clearly by adding this unnecessary ambiguity? I don't
think so. I don't just THINK I'm right. I HOPE I'm right. The
language will certainly survive if I'm wrong. We got along well
enough when we couldn't use {-moH} on a transitive verb at all.
I guess we'll do okay if every single such example will always
be ambiguous.
> >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.
The section in TKD which describes {-lu'} spends a paragraph or
two describing the affect {-lu'} has on the proper
interpretation of the prefix. The indicated subject changes
roles so that it instead indicates the functional direct object,
and the indicated direct object is always third person singular
so that it maps to the grammatically singular indefinite
subject.
None of this is valid if there is no direct object. There is no
such thing as a prefix for "no subject", so you can't reverse
roles for indicated subject and object. So, there is a role
versal for the indicated subject and object for all verbs with
{-lu'}, unless the verb is intransitive, in which case the
prefix remains unaltered.
We had to learn that exception through example because the
grammatical description never touched on it. It was simply not
addressed. I learned a mechanism and the exception to that
mechanism was not described, so I was confused. Through canon
usage, I've learned this exception to the rule, but it continues
to be an exception. The roles of indicated subject and object do
not reverse for intransitive verbs the way it does for
transitive ones.
You don't see that as exceptional?
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI' 'utlh