tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 03 06:36:28 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[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



Back to archive top level