tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 08 20:45:56 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: deep structures
In the 'parsing' note, I said that I understand relatively simple
phrases by doing something like matching them against templates.
At the core of this discussion is the fact that a phrase like
{targhvaD qaSopmoH} fits multiple templates well, and I can
identify the grammar that makes it work for each way I am able
to interpret it.
ja' charghwI':
>> [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.
>
>I need examples before I can agree.
I gave one a bit further on, but you didn't interpret it at all the
way I do. I'll address it in a moment.
>> I tend to interpret {-moH} more as modifying the meaning of the verb
>> itself than as reassigning roles of the surrounding nouns.
>
>In that case, I think you are just going through some
>subconscious reassigning of the nouns, because the "change" you
>describe for the verbs really changes the relationship of those
>verbs with their related nouns.
You seem to have difficulty with reading {SopmoH} as a verb meaning
"make eat" without explicitly considering a transformation from the
{Sop} when {-moH} is added. Does {ghojmoH} have the same problem
for you?
>> 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.
>
>The net result is the same. Those nouns have reassigned roles.
Looking at it from a strict grammatical point of view, that's one way
of interpreting it. But I'm not feeling a need to view it that way.
One of the things that my understanding of {-moH} tells me is that the
object of the verb is *not* really changed.
>Meanwhile, if something pleases me, I see that as quite
>different from something causing me to eat. Causation is so
>imbedded into "pleasing" that I don't even see it as cause, but
>it is so surficial on "cause to eat" that I can't ignore it.
I think it's odd that you'd quickly accept {belmoH} as a unit but
strongly reject {SopmoH}. It appears this is an expression of the
transitive/intransitive distinction that is so firm in your internal
model of Klingon grammar.
>> ...I'm
>> just not convinced that having a {-vaD} and a {-moH} at the same time
>> *always* has to imply a ditransitive interpretation.
>
>Give me an example that will make sense to me.
I did give you one, but you didn't interpret the way I intended it.
Have a look:
>> 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}?
>
>Yes. "The device is stained for my father." "The device causes
>my father to stain (something)." These two are COMPLETELY
>different, especially in the role of your father.
Whoa! I meant "the device stains for my father." You picked up on the
{ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} pattern even without a direct object present,
either explicit or prefix-implied. I'm very surprised that you managed
to interpret {vavwI'vaD nguvmoH jan} as if it were {vavwI' nguvmoH jan}.
Let's try another one: {DuSaQvaD ghojmoH qup}. I think it has enough
self-evident context that one would be most likely to interpret it as
"the elder teaches for the school", and a possible "the elder makes the
school learn" meaning would be *very* far down on the list of meanings.
How do you interpret {'unvaD qul vItujmoH}? I can't imagine anyone
failing to read it as "I heat the fire for the pot."
>If {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} was not an example of new grammar and
>was merely an ambiguous statement which can be decyphered by
>context, then how did it even get its "secondary" meaning which
>we would select from context? What explains an indirect object
>acting as subject of the root verb? It had never happened before.
I guess this is just a fundamental disagreement about what the suffix
{-moH} really means. I think it changes the meaning of the verb to
give it a "cause" idea, and you think it rearranges the roles of the
nouns that would have been there if {-moH} were not present. There's
obviously room to disagree here, since we're both pretty good at the
task of communicating even with our disparate understanding of what's
really at the root of the grammatical rules and examples we have.
>I don't think that there are words that are ditransitive and you
>can arbitrarily assign one of the objects as direct and the
>other as indirect and it is just ambiguous and you figure it out
>from context. I think that is an absurd idea. As much as I think
>it is wrong, I HOPE it is wrong.
I see it more as a matter of whether the {-moH}'ed idea captures
the direct object or not. It's certainly not just an arbitrary
one-or-the-other assignment; for one thing, the patterns of the
two different meanings are quite distinct. You're taking the
existence of the ditransitive {qawmoH} example and using it as a
justification for *never* allowing a {-moH}'ed verb to have a
simple beneficiary. I am firmly convinced that there's just no
reason you should be able to forbid such a construction.
>Instead, I think that each verb has established relationships
>with its objects. These are somewhat arbitrary, but they are
>consistent. That's why it sounds natural to say "Orbit the
>planet in your ship" and even with English's wildly varying word
>order, it sounds awkward to say "Orbit your ship around the
>planet." The word orbit implies "around" as its relationship
>with its direct object.
The word "orbit" can also just imply an activity without giving
an explicit center of motion. One might orbit for the benefit of
the local customs officials. Do you have a problem with using a
nominally transitive verb having no explicit object in a sentence
which includes a beneficiary? Does {SoSwI'vaD jISop} make sense?
I would hope you understand and accept it.
We have a verb meaning "play (a musical instrument)" and its object
is the instrument being played. Your insistence on there being but
one legal way to interpret {-vaD} and {-moH} precludes an otherwise
simple way to say "The emperor made me play something for his children."
This sentence doesn't ignore the established relationship that {chu'}
has with its object. It just uses the root verb in what ought to be
a perfectly reasonable intransitive way.
>When we say "Give me the apple," we are not arbitrarily
>assigning direct and indirect object. We have established rules
>for determining which is which. I honestly believe that Klingon
>does the same thing. For {-moH} on transitive verbs, we have
>only one example of the grammar and I think that prescribes how
>we should determine what is direct and what is indirect object
>IN ALL INSTANCES of {-moH} with transitive verbs.
We have *several* examples of {-moH} on transitive verbs, though
{tuQmoH} "put on (clothes)" and {tuQHa'moH} "undress" are a bit
lacking in explicit detail, and you have apparently chosen to
dismiss the {maghoSchoHmeHneS'a'} example as wrong.
And I'm very surprised that you would hold up a single example of
a grammatical construction as an indication of how it should be
done "IN ALL INSTANCES".
>I also think
>that given this example, all instances of verbs with {-moH} that
>have indirect objects should be assumed to be transitive until
>we are given some sort of example showing how that would work.
>You still haven't given an example that looks to me like it
>would work in anything but the grammar this example demonstrates.
I've given several now. I hope at least one of them manages to
show you how my interpretation is possible.
>> 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.
>
>No. That is not accurate. I do not accept (until shown
>otherwise) that a verb with {-moH} can have an indirect object
>that is not acting as subject of root verb with a sense of
>transitivity even if the direct object is unstated and not a
>point of focus, as is the case with {Sop}. You can't eat without
>eating SOMETHING, so even as you use {Sop} "intransitively",
>there is an implication that it actually is transitive with a
>very vague indifference to what that direct object would be. It
>is the direct object equivalent to what {-lu'} does to the
>subject.
Reading your response, I almost have to laugh. You begin with the
words "No. That is not accurate." You then proceed to explain that
a transitive verb root can not be used for an intransitive idea if
there is a {-moH} involved, which is basically what I said was the
big questionable assumption in your whole argument.
I'm still trying to figure out why you think a {-moH} absolutely,
positively, one hundred percent of the time *has* to intercept any
{-vaD} as acting as a subject instead of a beneficiary.
>> >{targhvaD Qa'Hom vISopmoH}...
>>
>> 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."...
>
>You are introducing the infinitive in a way that creates this
>ambiguity. In earlier, intransitive examples, the grammar made
>the direct object become subject to the root verb. "I cause the
>Qa'Hom to eat." In the later transitive example, the role
>changes for the direct object. The indirect object usurps its
>earlier function. "I cause the targ to eat the Qa'Hom."
Tsk, tsk, tsk. You're apparently using the English translation of
a verb with {-moH} as the basis for your refusal to accept what I
see as a grammatically legal interpretation.
Right after the {HIQoymoH} example on page 38, TKD says this:
| For example, {chenmoH} "he/she makes, creates" could be translated
| "he/she causes to take shape ({chen} "take form, take shape"), but
| this is an awkward English phrase.
I'm not introducing the infinitive arbitrarily. I'm following what
I see as the real meaning of the suffix {-moH}.
>By your current description, the indirect object's role never
>changes. You just have to decide whether or not to include the
>direct object as a direct object or leave it apart, in which
>case it magically migrates to the subject of the root verb.
I'm not seeing the same thing you are with this "migrating noun"
idea. I can follow it, and I can see how it makes sense, but I
don't think it's the best explanation of what's going on. When
{-moH} gets added, I don't see it modifying the role of any nearby
nouns. I see it modifying the meaning of the verb. The result is
pretty much the same in either case: {yIt} has the person walking
for a subject, and {yItmoH} has the person walking for an object.
It's a subtle point, for sure, but I'm not getting the impression
that {-moH} actually *moved* the subject to the object position.
>So, by your model, let's go for that non-inclusion of the direct
>object. "I cause-to-eat the Qa'Hom for the targ." If it is not
>included as direct object, why not just not include it? "I
>cause-to-eat for the targ." While we are dropping off optional
>nouns, let's drop the indirect object as well. "I-cause-to-eat".
Sure, why not? "I cause-to-eat" makes sense to me. Just like
"I cause-to-learn". Or "anger excites" -- which is found on page
196 of The Klingon Way.
>I think I saw one weird example of a verb with {-moH} being used
>intransitively and it looked like a mistake.
>
>TKD p45: maghoSchoHmoHneS'a'
>
>I think Okrand just popped a fuse trying to combine suffixes. It
>is the only intransitive prefix I've ever seen on a verb with
>{-moH} and I really don't think it works that well.
First, there's still that {SeymoH QeH} example that you seem to
keep pretending doesn't exist. Second, it looks fine to me.
The literal "do we make [something unstated] change to approach, your
honor?" is rather rough, certainly. But the "execute a course change"
idea absolutely does not mention what is being made to follow a modified
course. "We" are not going to change course. We are going to *cause*
to alter course (the ship, or the raft, or whatever).
>I really think what is happening is that you are not paying much
>attention to the relationship between the {Qa'Hom} and the
>eating. You just hang the noun off to the side and let it slide
>in whereever it makes the most sense. Is it the subject or the
>object of the eating? You don't care much. You just let your
>English property of letting words slide around and let that
>slide into Klingon.
Not at all. I'm explicitly considering that the suffix {-vaD} is
used to mark the beneficiary of an action. When there is already
an object of a verb and {-moH} is applied, I don't think that there
is any reason for {-moH} to have an affect on the object. When the
verb has no object and {-moH} is applied, I don't think that there
is any reason to usurp the beneficiary of the action and say it is
suddenly what used to be the subject of the verb.
>Meanwhile, in Klingon, the subject and object are always
>defined. Other nouns can come first, especially with Type 5 or
>Time Stamp references, but the subject and object are generally
>clear in Klingon. Why do you consider that feature of Klingon to
>be so unnecessary as soon as one adds {-moH} to a verb?
I don't understand the question. I'm *not* trying to muddle the
roles of subject and object. I'm also quite explicitly trying to
keep the role of a noun with a Type 5 suffix clear. Why do *you*
consider the beneficiary of an action to change so drastically as
soon as a {-moH} shows up?
. . .
As for {-lu'}, I certainly agree that I'm assuming some grammatical
feature that is not described in TKD. But I'm just assuming that
one is permitted to use a null prefix when a "no object" is required
on a {-lu'} verb. As I said before:
>> That seems simpler to me than summoning
>> into existence an exceptional grammatical treatment of intransitive
>> verbs when the {-lu'} suffix is used.
>
>Well, you see, there are rules to this grammar, and that case
>violated those rules, so I had to make up new rules. So did you,
>whether you are willing to admit it or not.
I freely admit that I'm saying something that TKD doesn't address.
But my "made up rule" is a whole lot simpler than yours. :-P
(In case it's not clear, that's a *playful* tongue sticking out,
not a spiteful one.)
-- ghunchu'wI'