tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 02 06:32:10 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Undoubtedly continue to..
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:30:34 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Hey, charghwI' said something... guess that means I have to disagree. :)
Actually, not completely.
>On 29 Oct 1999 13:11:33 -0000 "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> >From: "Klingon Honour" <[email protected]>
>> >Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:20:00 EST
>> >
>> >Mark's guideline of:
>> >1) suffix-meanings *usually* apply in (roughly) the order given.. and
>> >you should try other sensible orderings that make more sense, if the default
>> >one doesn't work.
>> >
>> >This makes sense but then I can seen the possibility of ambiguity like one
>> >of the earlier examples that I gave:
>> >{qarchu'be'} or {qarbe'chu'}?
>>
>> Well, remember the motivation for the guideline. It probably means the
>> obvious thing (suffixes applied in order), but might mean something with a
>> different ordering *because* there's only one right way to order the
>> suffixes. This reasoning doesn't apply to rovers. If someone meant to say
>> {qarbe'chu'} or {qarchu'be'}, there's nothing preventing either ordering,
>> so you should expect the rovers to be in the right places, and {-be'} is a
>> rover (obviously I'm referring to "true" rovers, as opposed to {-Ha'} and
>> {-Qo'}, whose positions are fixed.)
>
>Well, having seen this statement go by a few times now, I
>finally can no longer let it simply continue to pass. I would
>argue that {-Ha'} really IS a true rover in that it definitely
>applies its meaning to what immediately preceeds it. It is
>simply that because of the way that it works, it can only be
>applied to the root verb. Its meaning is ALWAYS fundamentally
>linked to the root verb. The fact that it always preceeds any
>existing suffixes is an effect of the way it works, not just an
>arbitrary grammatical rule.
Mmm. I see the distinction you're trying to make, but not the practical
difference. When I think about it, though, you make a good point. What
suffixes would you want to apply -Ha' to? Most of them make more sense
with -be' than -Ha'. Looking through TKD in order now... OK, *maybe* -beH,
to indicate disabling a function... *-vIpHa' makes for some interesting
poetry (though better for a Human to say it. Maybe sort of showing bravery
despite fear, or fear that's gone all the way out the other side. Not a
Klingon sentiment, but would be cool in a Klingon poem written by a
human)... *-moHHa' makes more sense as -Ha'[...]moH... *-neSHa' is amusing,
but get serious...
I think I'm willing to buy this.
>As for {-Qo'}, I think it works the way other people have argued
>that {-be'} works. It implies refusal globally applied to
>everything that preceeds it. The entire verb with all of its
>affixes has a meaning and {-Qo'} implies refusal by the subject
>applied to that entire meaning. The position is an effect of its
>function, not separate from that function.
This one is a little weaker; I've often wanted to be able to refuse part of
something. Or a better example, how do you express the difference between
"I refuse to make him sleep" vs. "I make him refuse to sleep"? Yes, you
can say the latter using two sentences. Could you use "vIQongmoHQo'" for
it too? Umm... hrm, maybe not. I have to think about this some more;
maybe some of the other responses to charghwI' will help me focus this
better, but I'm a little less in agreement about this one.
The other classic example of "misplaced" suffixes involves -'egh/-chuq
before -moH when we might want it after. And other cases too.
>> Anyone who says {qarchu'be'} to mean
>> {qarbe'chu'} is making a mistake.
>
>This is exactly why I always hated the argument that we can
>globalize what {-be'} negates. Since {-be'} obviously CAN apply
>to the single affix or root verb it immediately follows, if it
>also can negate everything that preceeds it, how can we tell the
>difference? And since it is truely mobile, the required ordering
>of other affixes make it arbitrary which affixes are being
>negated and which ones aren't.
>
>I know that I lost this argument. A couple canon examples
>clearly show that {-be'} was negating everything that preceeded
>it, but I still think that is a loss of clarity in the language
>and I seem to do just fine never using {-be'} in this way.
Well, the only "global -be'" that I know of (if I'm understanding you
right) is {batlh bIHeghbe'} for "You will die without honor." I can see
how that's annoying, but on the other hand I can see why it's necessary.
Again, Klingon is not totally rule-bound. You apply the rules, but also
you apply some intuition and common sense. There's a fine line to walk, of
course, between bending the rules or faking it when they're insufficient,
and ignoring them altogether or not trying hard enough to apply them.
>Speaking of ambiguity, the thing I've been pondering on lately
>is that since Okrand has recently given us a method of
>distinguishing between the location where the action of a verb
>of motion happens and the location of its destination, what
>about other verbs that sometimes involve more than one location,
>though they do not involve motion?
>
>In other words:
>
>1. tachDaq jIjaH. I'm in the bar and I'm going.
>2. tachDaq vIjaH. I'm going toward the bar.
>3. tach vIjaH. Same as #2.
>
>But what about:
>
>Qe'Daq Qanqor vIlegh.
>
>Am I in the bar seeing Krankor, or am I seeing Krankor while he
>is in the bar?
>
>If we go by the advice given us so far, I am in the bar and I'm
>seeing Krankor, who may be in the bar or not. There's no
>reference to Krankor's location. The locative points to where
>the action happens and in order for the action of seeing to
>happen in the bar, I have to be in the bar if I'm the one doing
>the seeing.
Me, I'm inclined to go with what we have now. It's no worse than English
"I saw the man in the park with the telescope."
>Otherwise, I have to say:
>
>qachDaq tlhutlh Qanqor 'e' vIlegh.
>
>If instead I say:
>
>tlhutlh Qanqor qachDaq 'e' vIlegh.
>
>then I'm just saying that I'm in a bar and I'm seeing
>that Krankor is drinking. Maybe he is drinking on the sidewalk
>outside and I see him in the doorway or through a window.
>
>But if what you want to say is that you are standing outside and
>you look in through a window and you see Krankor drinking in a
>bar, you have to say:
>
>qachDaq tlhutlh Qanqor, tach HurDaq jIQamtaHvIS 'e' vIlegh.
>
>My argument here is that if you are standing outside of a bar
>and you look in through a window and see Krankor and you tell
>your friend:
>
>qachDaq Qanqor vIlegh.
>
>then you have just made a mistake because you have tried to
>transfer what is ambiguous in English into an equal ambiguity in
>Klingon. Unfortunately for you, in Klingon, this is not
>ambiguous. Locatives (except in the special case of the direct
>objects of verbs of motion) always refer to the location where
>the action of the verb happens, not the location of the object
>of an action.
Hmm... You know, I think I agree with you. I was going to disagree, but
even before I got to where you said this I had already come up with the
same conclusion in passing.
~mark