tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 08 08:31:35 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yIt
On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 14:26:54 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> jatlh ghunchu'wI':
> >ja' T'Lod:
> >><< juH vIghoS. jIyIt.
> >> >>
> >>
> >>Why not just say:
> >>juHDaq jIyIt.
> >
> >Because that is at least as likely to mean "I walk at home" or
> >"I walk in the home". It's certainly not as clearly expressed
> >as the {juH vIghoS; jIyIt} that charghwI' suggested. Although
> >one might be able to interpret the two sentences as indicating
> >a sequence, the important idea of going home is unmistakable.
> >To be more certain of being understood, one could make one of
> >the sentences into a clause tied to the other one:
> >
> >
> >juH vIghoStaHvIS jIyIt.
> >juH vIghoS jIyIttaHvIS.
> >juH vIghoSmeH jIyItlI'.
> >jIyIttaHmo' juH vIghoSlI'.
This last one doesn't work for me at all. The other three are
fine, though perhaps a bit "upity" and "fancified" for my taste,
given that Okrand seems to have recently shifted toward these
multiple small sentences building context for each other.
It just sounds really weird to say that I'm proceeding home
BECAUSE I'm walking.
> Though all of your examples do succeed at being more exact, I much prefer
> charghwI''s {juH vIghoS; jIyIt.} I've been getting more and more of the
> impression that Klingon has many of these jammed-together sentences. The
> first glaring one was {'uSDaj chop; chev} from Power Klingon, though I think
> there were some before it. A Klingon saying {juH vIghoS; jIyIt} wouldn't
> pause significantly at the semicolon: he'd keep right on going like the PK
> example. {juH vIghoS jIyIt!} is how it would sound. And since I'm going
> through some scenes in Hamlet now for the I-Con convention, and Hamlet has a
> LOT of clauses in most sentences, I've been seeing places where the run-on
> sentence would be much, much easier to parse. (Admittedly, one could say it
> mimicks the dense English.)
All good observations.
> But now I'm getting confused. When I first saw the Okrand interview with
> the motion verbs, I could see {-Daq} seeming to be redefined. charghwI'
> insists that what was happening was Okrand confirming the usage of a few
> select verbs, and since I wasn't there I am forced to accept his
> explanation. But it seems like the nature of {-Daq} is STILL being
> considered here. Since when have we been concerned about the ambiguity of
> {juHDaq jIyIt}? While {juH vIghoS; jIyIt} has always been an option, no one
> would ever have complained about {juHDaq jIyIt} until now. The ambiguity
> has always been considered perfectly normal, and TKD backs this up.
I think I agree with you. I see at least two different
"redefinitions" of {-Daq} here. I argued against one and you are
pointing out the other.
Krankor went ballistic because he saw that now {-Daq} could go
on any direct object. Previously, it was not useful for direct
objects. He was very concerned about the boundary where {-Daq}
could go where it could never previously go, which is on a
direct object.
That's what I was answering when I said that the scope was
limited to a few select verbs. We had the precedent in TKD for
that. I did not see any reason for concern that the general
grammatical function of {-Daq} was changing so that it could
generally be used on direct objects.
But you bring up another point, and I think it is a good one. In
general, I've been in favor of anything that adds specificity to
the language and does not involve unnecessary ambiguity and I've
felt rather disappointed at times when the language clearly
missed opportunities for more specificity.
Meanwhile, this is a new, somewhat uncomfortable specificity
which I'm willing to adapt to, but I agree with you. It makes me
have to rethink things I would have more casually said.
I do think this idea that [{-Daq} as a locative only describes
the location of the action of the verb] makes things awkward.
Meanwhile, I see the explicit expansion of the list of
{ghoS}-like verbs as a compensation for that. The whole reason
{ghoS, jaH, leng}, etc. behave the way they do is to give us the
ability to have a location as a destination instead of a
locative setting for the action of the verb.
So, basically, if you are describing a location for the action,
use {-Daq} with normal verbs. If you are describing location as
a destination, use a {ghoS}-like verb. Those appear to be our
only choices.
> Are we always to come up with alternatives to {-Daq}? Does {-Daq} no longer
> sufficiently mean "to" as it does "at"? Is it now too ambiguous to use with
> the "to" meaning that we'll be telling others to use something else?
Yes. We'll have to use the {ghoS} class verbs. I can certainly
be wrong about this, but that sure is the sense that I'm getting
about things. I also suspect that this is a relatively "new"
thing. I doubt Okrand had fully thought this out when he wrote
TKD and put {ghoS} in there, but I do suspect this is a further
development based upon what he did have in mind at that time.
> What's
> the deal here? Are we redefining {-Daq} ourselves, has it been redefined
> for us, or have we always been using it wrong?
I think it is being SLIGHTLY redefined for us. I suspect if we
sweep through canon, we'll find Okrand "misusing" it by the new
definition. Meanwhile, I feel like I can cope with this change,
given the fuller class of {ghoS}-like verbs we have to work with.
> I guess I'm rather concerned
> with the "Oh, yes, I knew that" attitude I'm seeing with some of the list
> members.
If I'm one who has been doing that (and I suspect I am) then I
apologize. I think I DID know earlier about the ability for
{-Daq} to be placed on direct objects of {ghoS}. I mean, it's
right there in TKD. Meanwhile I DIDN'T know about the
restriction of {-Daq} to location for the action of the verb,
not allowing it to be a destination.
Meanwhile, having lost the "destination" meaning, {-Daq} gained
the "deixis" reference meaning for verbs like {Sum} and {Hop}.
I think it does take some adaptation on our part, but I think it
is quite survivable. 'oy' yISIQ.
> SuStel
> Stardate 99179.1
charghwI' 'utlh