tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 09 12:30:53 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chaq tugh jImej.
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:31:50 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' charghwI':
> >These recent discussions have presented the idea that, as a
> >prime example {targhvaD Qa'Hom vISopmoH} means "I cause-to-eat
> >the Qa'Hom for the benefit of the targ."...
>
> For this particular phrase, that is perhaps correct. But there are
> other phrases that can carry the desired meaning without ambiguity.
The problem is that those phrases avoid the example Okrand gave
us for what he has called a "ditransitive" verb. He gave us the
example to use, but we can't agree on how to use it despite his
explicit example.
> There are *many* other phrases that can be used. The language has
> a multitude of tools to make clear who is eating whom.
Examples would help.
> >That completely undermines my efforts at gaining anything
> >approaching a native understanding of how to use the words well
> >to express meaning. As minor as this point apparently seems to
> >many people, the effect on me is that I want to burn or delete
> >every dictionary I have, unsubscribe from the list and Okrand's
> >NEWS group, and except for sustaining good friendships with good
> >and interesting people I've met over the years working with this
> >language, otherwise forget I ever saw TKD.
>
> nuqjatlh?! I feel terrible to have been a major catalyst in this
> urge of yours. I've always seen our debates as akin to a couple
> of sparring partners keeping each other in shape. I regret very
> much causing any lasting damage.
Don't feel bad. You are not alone in disagreeing with what was
to me a clear-cut following in the footsteps of a canon example
showing us how to handle ditransitive verbs. That's my main
problem. You don't like my interpretation. In private
Email, Krankor goes beyond saying that it is ambiguous and says
that he is sure it goes the other way. The Qa'Hom is definitely
the one doing the eating. He considers the Skybox example to
be a mistake that should be discounted. On the NEWS list, SuStel
speaks quite strongly suggesting that I have this wrong.
If I'm right and substantial numbers of the other experts say
I'm wrong, then we have no agreement on how the language works
and I'm not any happier for being right. If I'm wrong, then
without any explanation for the obvious ditransitive example on
the Skybox card, there's no way to establish that I'm wrong, and
I'm not happy being so uncertain.
I really feel like a lot of my work has been suddenly
invalidated. It's not just a simple matter of changing my
understanding to match some new, clear reality, like the way
{Hoch} was used. I had it wrong and the right way was revealed
and I adapted without a lot of complaint.
But here, nothing is being revealed. I have what feels like a
crystaline understanding of how this works, yet few if any agree
and it is the exact opposite of what other experts believe to be
true, so there is no way we can join together in expressing a
whole class of thought.
{targhvaD Qa'Hom vISopmoH.} Nobody suggests this is
grammatically incorrect. We all agree that it has meaning. We
completely disagree over what it means. That breaks the whole
toy for me. "Vague, wittering and indecisive." Not Klingon.
> >I didn't work so hard to learn this language so that I would
> >discover that I can't clearly express whether that Qa'Hom is
> >eating or being eaten. Maybe Okrand thinks it is cool to
> >immitate natural languages which have exactly that kind of
> >ambiguity built in. Bully for him. I hope he enjoys turning that
> >concept around in his head.
>
> You do know how to avoid ambiguity when necessary. Please don't
> use it as an excuse to withdraw from such an interesting community
> of people.
It is not that the expression is ambiguous. So far there are
three different interpretations of the sentence. One group (so
far as I know, only me) think it definitely means that the targ
eats the Qa'Hom. A second group (mostly Krankor) believes that
the Qa'Hom definitely eats, but the targ mysteriously benefits
from this. There's no way the Qa'Hom is being eaten. A third
group (you were the first to express this) thinks that it is
ambiguous. Either meaning could be true. Context dictates what
is happening.
I don't think it is ambiguous. Neither does Krankor.
And THAT is the problem. I'm much more tollerant of ambiguity
than I am on the fundamental loss of agreement on how grammar
works for a large class of verbs and their objects.
Most of my personal work in Klingon for the past couple years
has been on understanding verbs and their objects. Now, I find
that we can't agree on this. And it is not even just my opinion
vs. someone else's. There are three camps so far and each of
them is totally convinced that the other two are just confused
about things. I do not doubt that I'm right. Neither does
Krankor. Neither do you.
So, we are not speaking the same language. We just had a
dialectic split, and Okrand is not likely to fix this any time
soon. I'd be delighted if he did, but it is not the sort of
thing I expect to happen.
> >But it completely disengages me from interest in the language.
> >
> >Completely.
> >
> >Not almost completely.
> >
> >Completely.
> >
> >So, I've lost all my momentum working on the language.
> >
> >pItlh
>
> chay'?!
>
> Qo'! gholonqa'Qo'!
tuHutlhchoHchugh SutaHchu'ba'.
> bIDajbej. bIQubchu'. Holmaj DaSaHba'pu'.
> tlhIngan Hol Daqelrupbe'choH 'e' raDlaH'a' wa' DochHom ramqu'?
rut potlhna'wIj 'oH ramHeylIj'e'.
> va. lotvam vIqaSmoHlaw'. jIQoSqu'.
If a pebble starts an avalanche, it would have started without
the pebble. The pebble is less a "cause" than the potential
built up in the snow.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI' 'utlh