tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 06 16:07:22 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
deep structures and parsing
This thread has had an inappropriate KLBC on it for too long.
ja' charghwI':
>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)"
That's the one! I knew I had seen another example of a possibly
transitive verb actually used this way.
>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.
Don't forget the dictionary entries {tuQmoH} "put on (clothes)" and
{tuQHa'moH} "undress". They can fit the pattern revealed by the
{ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} example, but they can also make sense when
used like the {HIQoymoH} example: {qatuQHa'moH} "I undress you".
>[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.
Yes, this is apparently a very fuzzy area of the grammar. When two
people can make each other understood well yet disagree so strongly
about exactly *why* they are understood, there's obviously something
odd going on behind the scenes.
>[...]
>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.
Meanwhile, I understand both written and spoken Klingon a bit more
holistically. I don't try to "parse" it syllable by syllable. I get
an entire phrase in my head as a chunk and let the pattern of roots
and suffixes sort itself out into a meaningful idea based mostly on
examples I have encountered. It's not often that I must concentrate
explicitly on how a particular suffix affects the subject and object
of a verb.
[deconstruction of targhvaD qaSopmoH snipped]
>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}.
They also fit the grammar for indicating beneficiaries of a verb
that does not suffer from the "ditransitivity" problem.
>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've got to explain something about the way I hear language. I do
*not* parse a sentence in syllable-chronological order as I hear it.
I get an entire chunk of phrasing and "parse" it as a whole. As I
try to concentrate on exactly *how* I do that, it seems that I put
what I hear into a space-analogous buffer of sorts, and I "feel" the
parts of the phrase just below the threshhold of seeing them in my
mind. My model is not quite visual, but it is more spacial than it
is chronological.
>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.
Nope. I do almost exactly the same thing with written language as
I do with spoken language. I don't move my eyes back and forth over
the printed phrase unless it's a very complicated one. I move my
mental "feelers" over the phrase in my mind when I'm reading, in
much the same way I do when I'm listening.
>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.
I tend to interpret {-moH} more as modifying the meaning of the verb
itself than as reassigning roles of the surrounding nouns. Example:
{nguv} "it is tinted"; {nguvmoH} "it tints, it paints". I don't pay
much attention to what the subject and object of the un-moH'ed verb
would be when I hear a -moH'ed one, unless the verb is one I am not
used to encountering in an intransitive sense in the first place. I
often hear {Sop} used in ways similar to {qet}, for instance, so the
word {SopmoH} quite naturally strikes me as a verb with its natural
object as the entity being made to eat.
>> 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.
In that example, the concept underlying the words has to be expressed
using something appropriate for a ditransitive meaning. We do have
more than one example of ditransitive constructions -- {'oHvaD Qo'noS
ponglu'}, for instance -- and I have no problem with it at all. I'm
just not convinced that having a {-vaD} and a {-moH} at the same time
*always* has to imply a ditransitive interpretation.
>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.
Hmm. I really don't see {-moH} affecting an indirect object's function
much at all. If I say {vavwI'vaD nguv jan}, have I really changed the
role of {vavwI'} when I say {vavwI'vaD nguvmoH jan}?
>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.
I've *always* seen the {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} example as potentially
ambiguous. Because "heritage" is so unlikely to be able to "remember"
anything, I never thought it was worth pointing out the existence of
the unlikely alternate meaning. But {tIqwIjvaD qaDuQmoH} works in the
other direction -- since "my heart" is so unlikely to be able to "stab"
you, I decided it *was* worth pointing out what I think is the likely
alternate meaning.
>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 will not gloat. While there indeed are examples that toss a lot of
the basis for your argument out the window, we still haven't actually
managed to resolve things clearly in my favor either.
>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.
The flaw in your argument I see is that you assume that a transitive
verb root can not be used for an intransitive idea, and that {-moH}
on such a verb root necessarily creates a ditransitivity issue.
>[...]
>{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.
I actually read it most literally as "I cause-to-eat the Qa'Hom
for the targ." The ambiguity comes in when trying to decide if
it should be "I cause-to-eat-the-Qa'Hom for the targ." Does the
*direct object* get captured in the effect of the {-moH} or not?
It's a similar sort of scope problem that you and I occasionally
disagree on when considering how much of the sentence can get the
effect of the suffix {-be'}, except this time it looks like you
are arguing that the more limited range of action is not right.
The rest of this is about {-lu'} and should probably be in a separate
thread, but I don't really think it calls out for more than a couple
of sentences and I don't want to spawn another long discussion on it.
>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?
I see your whole focus on treating transitive and intransitive verbs
differently as a major complication of the grammar. The grammatical
description consistently says that the basic meaning of {-lu'} is
merely "indefinite subject", and the prefix reversal is incidental.
The only problem with that is what to do when there's a verb needing
to indicate no object at all. I reconcile the usage with a simple
observation that there indeed is no verb prefix given for "no subject"
in the matrix, so the obvious way to deal with it is either not to use
a prefix at all (radical, eh?) or simply to co-opt the null prefix to
carry the required meaning. That seems simpler to me than summoning
into existence an exceptional grammatical treatment of intransitive
verbs when the {-lu'} suffix is used.
-- ghunchu'wI'