tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 01 14:43:14 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: Undoubtedly continue to..

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:30:12 EST Klingon Honour 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >jatlh SuStel:
> >I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I will point out that when we 
> >first learned of the {-Daq vI<verb>} (etc.) rules in the interview, you 
> >were adamant in refusing to let me speculate on what this may mean about 
> >the broader applications of {-Daq}, etc.  You insisted that these rules 
> >only applied to those specific verbs that Okrand mentioned, and could not 
> >be used with any verbs not mentioned by Okrand.  Have you changed your 
> >mind?
> 
> jatlh ngghoy:
> "these rules only applied to those specific verbs that Okrand mentioned.."
> This sounds like a bit of a "control" debate. Since when does one get to 
> dictate about which verbs can and can't have these rules applied, especially 
> since there from the word class? Unless, there is some universal 
> characteristic which divides them, that's descriminating like the blue-eyed, 
> blond hair experiment.

Simple. What SuStel is describing is the way that Okrand gave us 
the ability to state the destination of motion. Until he gave us 
this ability, locatives only functioned to tell us the location 
of motion, not the destination of it. It is the difference 
between saying where you are running (on the sidewalk) vs. where 
you are running TO (the store).

When Okrand first revealed this, he did not explain this quite 
that explicitly. Instead, it honestly sounded like there was a 
limited set of verbs that had this distinction. As he has 
subsequently expanded it, the point seems to be whether or not a 
verb can imply a sense of destination. That still doesn't open 
it up to using a locative as a direct object for any verb you 
like, regardless of whether that verb makes any sense as having 
a destination.
 
> >Personally, though it's an interesting concept, I think it may be too much 
> >hair-splitting to worry about it (gads, I'm starting to sound like 
> >Krankor!).  English can be equally ambiguous: "I see Krankor in the bar."  
> >I might be seeing Krankor while I am in the bar, or I might be seeing 
> >Krankor while he is in the bar.  Most people will understand what you 
> >meant.
> 
> I think this is where context comes in.. finally!

The problem I have with this is that Okrand seemed, when he gave 
us this new, clarified sense of specifying destination by making 
a locative a direct object, to be more severely limiting the use 
of locatives the REST of the time. If I say, {DujDaq jIjaH}, by 
necessity, that means that I am engaged in the activity of going 
and that activity is occurring on the ship. It does NOT mean I'm 
going TO the ship. The action is happening at the location.

So, in the {legh} example, the verb has an action and that 
action has a location. Krankor is not doing the seeing. I'm 
doing the seeing, so the activity of seeing is occurring where 
*I* am, not where KRANKOR is. I still suggest that saying 
{Qe'Daq Qanqor vIlegh,} is wrong if I'm trying to say that I'm 
outside the restaurant looking in and I see Krankor in the 
restaurant. {Qe' HurDaq Qanqor vIlegh Qe'Daq ba'taHvIS Qanqor.}
 
> >And consider another possibility: perhaps all verbs with locatives have 
> >this ambiguity, EXCEPT for the ones specifically mentioned by Okrand in the 
> >interview.  Thus, {Qe'Daq Qanqor vIlegh} is ambiguous as to who is where, 
> >but {Qe'Daq jIjaH} is not.
> 
> That's funny! :0

You seem easily amused.
 
> >jatlh charghwI':
> >Obviously, someone will disagree, simply because I said it. Why
> not? Things have gotten a little dead around here, anyway, right.
> 
> >wejpuH.
> 
> Dead? Who's dead??!!!!.. Maybe you are mellowing.
> (There, have I made you a happier person by disagreeing with you?)

I was doing just fine before you spoke up, actually.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level