tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 18 16:38:55 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: ambiguous locatives



jIja'pu':
>> Heck, even {nuqDaq yuch Dapol?} uses a locative that doesn't have a
>> lot to do with the location of the subject of the sentence.

ja' charghwI':
>I perfectly disagree. The moment of the action of the verb, the
>subject is at the location.

Oh, give me a break.  The verb is "keep".  It's not a one-time event.
Even without a {-taH} or {-lI'}, it's talking about something ongoing.

>The question is not "Where is the
>chocolate?" The question is "Where do you store the chocolate?"
>The action occurs while you and the chocolate are in the same
>place.

Nice try.  I store fuel in my car's gas tank, but I've never been in
there.  A friend of mine stores water in a barrel in the attic of his
hunting cabin, but he doesn't have to be anywhere near the barrel in
order to do it.  Lots of people keep money in Swiss bank accounts.  I
keep dirty laundry in a basket on a corner of my bedroom, but I almost
never go there to fill it, because I enjoy throwing my clothes at it.
I don't believe you thought this through very well.

>> If you
>> try to argue otherwise, I'm likely to decide that *you* are the one
>> who is clinging to an unsupported notion without justification.
>
>Come on. The action occurs at a location. That's what locatives
>do. In this case, storing/keeping the chocolate happens where
>you are as you store the chocolate.

I regret to inform you that I have decided that you are clinging to an
unsupported notion without justification.  [It's strange to be on this
side of one of our debates for a change.]

What I've been seeing from you is a singleminded dedication to the idea
that a locative must always apply to the subject of a sentence.  Nothing
written about the language says anything like that, and I see plenty of
room in the definition of {-Daq} to let it apply to a much wider set of
concepts.  But until the {'Iw HIq bIr} example, whenever I presented an
argument to counter you, I was rebuked with a claim of "verbs of motion
are exceptional" or "you changed the rules by using {-moH}" or "you just
made that up, it doesn't mean what you say it does."

It's fascinating to watch the scaffolding you are erecting to keep safe
your tidy little interpretation of locatives, but I don't think you've
got a valid argument.  And I fervently hope that you don't take any of
this as a personal attack of any sort, because I *do* value your insight
into the language and your skill at cutting to the essence of an idea,
and I would really hate to lose you as a companion on this trek.

>> >> We'll have to disagree peacefully on this one, at least until someone
>> >> else manages to convince one of us to switch sides.
>> >
>> >Nice try at distorting my argument until I sound unreasonable
>> >and quickly declaring yourself to have the last word. These are
>> >not the tactics of an honorable participant in a discussion
>> >seeking anything like truth or understanding.
>>
>> I guess you're not one to "disagree peacefully", then. :-)
>
>Not when you offer your highly biased summary of my argument
>(which you just omitted from this post) with no offer for me to
>review that summary and have the opportunity to agree or
>disagree and then you unilaterally declare the discussion ended.
>That's not reasonable behavior. It's not very honorable
>behavior, either.

What's biased about it?  I'll put it back; it's only three lines:

You: "Locatives invariably apply to the subject."
Me:  "Look at this one!  The locative obviously applies to the object."
You: "That's not the object.  {-moH} turned it into a subject."

Here's what you had said in the paragraph I was responding to:
>I think this is a remnant of the oddness of verbs with {-moH}.
>There are two actions here. One is causation. One is explosion.
>The action of exploding occurs where the subject of that action
>explodes, which is on the dock. It doesn't look like the subject
>here because of {-moH}, but the subject of the action of
>exploding is definitely {lupDujHom}.

Your last sentence sure looks to me like you're claiming that {-moH}
made the object of the verb into a subject.  How else can I read it?

>Basically, that comes across as, "I've considered your opinion
>and mine and being completely unbiased, I've decided that I'm
>right and you are wrong, so there's no sense in any further
>discussion. You are not significant enough of an intellect to be
>capable of swaying my opinion, so you might as well stop
>talking. I'm not listenning. La la la la la la la la la la..."
>
>That's not the way I treat you.

Nor is it how I'm treating you.  My suggestion that we simply agree to
disagree is based on your explicit claim that {-moH} makes objects act
like subjects, which I do not accept.  Since the strongest defense you
put up against my {jormoH} example is something I do not believe to be
correct, our viewpoints are far enough out of sync with each other to
render useless any discussion about that particular point of grammar.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh




Back to archive top level