tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 02 08:13:39 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 2 Nov 1999 14:31:32 -0000 "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

...
> >> 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...

[Typically ~markonian deep thoughts about grammar snipped.]

> I think I'm willing to buy this.

Cool.
 
> >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"? 

I'd argue that "I refuse to make him sleep" works for {-Qo'} and 
"I make him refuse to sleep" doesn't. Very simply, I think of 
{-Qo'} as an attitude taken by the subject of the verb. In 
imperatives, this is always second person. In regular 
statements, it is always the subject doing the refusing. If you 
want the object to do the refusing, you have to recast so the 
object becomes a subject.

In the case of using {-moH}, you might try to construe this such 
that the verb has two subjects -- one for causation and one for 
the action of the verb, but I'd argue that only the one for 
causation is the real subject. The other is an object. 
Technically, I consider it to be an indirect object because of 
the way Okrand seems to have shown us that the ditransitive use 
of {-moH} works, but that's a side issue.

Basically, it is easy to find lots of examples of {-Qo'} 
indicating that the subject is the one doing the refusing. It is 
a bit more of a challenge to find one that has someone else 
doing the refusing.

> 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 subject does the refusing. If you want someone else to 
refuse, recast so the one doing the refusing becomes the subject 
of the verb with {-Qo'} on it.
 
> The other classic example of "misplaced" suffixes involves -'egh/-chuq
> before -moH when we might want it after.  And other cases too.

Face it. {-moH} is a problem. I basically believe that it has 
simple, limited utility and people try to push it too far. 
Overwork {-moH} and communication fails to happen. I feel like 
that now that we have finally stopped overworking {-ghach}, we 
should start a campaign to discourage the abuse of {-moH}. If a 
grammatical tool fails to convey clear meaning, then it works 
best to restrict its use to areas where it works well rather 
than use it frequently and argue about what the result means.
 
> >> 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.

Two points here. One, this was an example Okrand came up with 
before he considered the option of adding {-Ha'} to adverbs. 
Two, this is something mothers say to children and have done so 
for centuries as a traditional saying. I smell {no' Hol}.

But others have argued themselves bloody that this absolutely 
has to be the case and I grew weary of being a relatively lone 
fighter for this cause. Several people were arguing against me 
and only one that I can remember argued with me and I'm not sure 
he is still here. He was relatively new at the time...

> 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.

My problem is with broad, defacto statements that the globalized 
{-be'} is a proven fact and in pretty much all cases, 
interpretations of {-be'} used more locally are simply 
short-sighted and if the examples were expanded, they'd really 
have the same meaning, proving the globalizers to be 
fundamentally right and the localizers to be fundamentally wrong.
 
> >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."

My problem is that it smells a lot like we are just moving an 
ambiguity from English to Klingon because we are familiar with 
it. While we do so, we ignore that Okrand has pretty much 
explained that locatives express where the action happens and 
nothing else, unless it expresses a destination of a verb of 
motion.

{wej} is ambiguous in Klingon. I accept that. But it seems a lot 
like locatives are NOT ambiguous in Klingon the way they are 
ambiguous in English, but we act as if they were because that is 
what, as English speakers, we are accustomed to. That is the 
beginning and the end of what bothers me about this construction 
and our choice AS ENGLISH SPEAKERS, NOT AS KLINGON SPEAKERS to 
accept it as ambiguous.

> >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.

I'm very nearly dumbfounded.

Excuse me. I'm having an emotional moment here. Anybody got a 
hanky?
 
> ~mark

charghwI'

Back to archive top level