tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 13:05:03 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ambiguous locatives?
ja' charghwI':
>> ...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.
>
>...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?
I think perhaps the very existence of these verbs of motion tells us that
the applicability of the locative can vary. Some verbs' actions are very
focused on the location of the subject, such as {jor}. Others are focused
on where the object is, like {ghoS}. I won't ignore the possibility that
a verb like {legh} has a wide-ranging "location of action" and that there
are times when the locative isn't applying to the subject.
>> 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.
No, it isn't. What I mean when I talk about "the cat in the hat" is the
use of a locative without a verb in the first place. If I supported that,
I'd be arguing that {chegh mIvDaq vIghro'} is a well-formed sentence. So
I am trying very hard to find grammatical interpretations that don't make
that sentence possible.
My goal here is to explain how "I shot an elephant in my pajamas" is able
to be ambigous in the same way in both English and Klingon. I'm pretty
sure you'll consider this to be essentially handwaving in an attempt to
justify what you see as an unjustifiable position, but the thrust of my
argument is that the place at which an action occurs doesn't have to be
the location of the subject of the action.
>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.
So is your "solution" simply to ignore something that Okrand said and
pretend it doesn't exist? I would rather dig into *why* he said some
odd-sounding thing, and perhaps to discover an underlying truth about
the language. Not all "errors" are wrong -- consider O-S-V order for
toasts and the preferred use of {jIH tlhop} instead of {tlhopwIj}. I
am guessing you would rather bury {naDev jIHtaHbogh vISovbe'} instead
of explaining why it came to be, because it doesn't fit the absolutely
rigid grammar that you prefer to use in order to keep away the evil
boogeyman of ambiguity.
Don't take this *too* personally, ok? I'm debating a point of grammar,
and any apparent attacks on my opponent are showing up a lot stronger
than I intend them.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh