tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 03 06:36:28 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ambiguous locatives?
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:46:23 -0500 Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' charghwI':
> >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?
>
> I can't debate this. I think the second meaning is incorrect, but it
> seems that Okrand accepts it. In an early interview in HolQeD, he
> pointed out in passing that the "I shot an elephant in my pajamas"
> joke is one of the few kinds of ambiguities that *does* translate into
> Klingon well.
I honestly think that in this passing remark, he was not
thinking all that clearly. It suggests that a locative can be
used to modify a noun instead of a verb. The reason it is
ambiguous in English is because "an elephant in my pajamas"
makes sense in English. The prepositional phrase can modify the
noun adjectivally. That's not how it is supposed to work in
Klingon. Okrand definitely, in multiple settings, has explained
that the locative applies to the verb describing where the
action of the verb occurs. I suspect strongly that if Okrand
were involved in this discussion, he would probably agree that
the action of the verb "shot" has to happen "in my pajamas". I'm
doing the shooting, so I have to be in my pajamas. Now, if you
used the verb paw', the ambiguity would exist. In fact, it would
suggest that we were BOTH in my pajamas when the collision
occurred.
> I can perhaps argue that it works because shooting involves both the
> gunner and the target, and the locative could apply to the action of
> making the shot or of being shot.
I have a hard time accepting that the locative describing the
action of shooting can apply to that which is shot. Besides this
admittedly casual and perhaps not deeply thought out comment, is
there any canon of Okrand using the locative to indicate to
location of the direct object of an action rather than of the
action itself (typically the location of the subject) except for
the explicitly explained rule about verbs of motion and their
destination?
> The same argument works for seeing.
> But I don't want to take it too far, because I might find myself in the
> uncomfortable position of supporting the "cat in the hat" construction.
This is exactly what this is supporting: Locatives applied to
nouns without regard to the involved verbs. Since locatives and
direct objects always come at the beginning of sentences, if
this is allowed without VERY specific explanation, it introduces
yet another absurd volume of ambiguity to the language,
interfering with clarity of meaning in even the most basic
sentences.
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
charghwI' 'utlh