tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 01 18:34:04 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
I wish to respect this response too much to just say, "This is old and I'm
late to respond" and just drop it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 5:56 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
>
>
> jIjatlh:
> > > HIvje'Daq yIqang.
> > > Pour it into the cup.
> >
> > I agree, but only because pouring happens in the cup. You don't pour in
> the
> > bottle. You pour FROM the bottle. The pouring happens in the cup.
>
> Doesn't the pouring happen in the room where I'm standing while pouring?
Much as it happens in the city where the room was built and the planet where
the city exists and the star system where the planet spins... You can always
zoom out, but the point I'm making is that the pouring happens in the cup. I
don't think it is really possible to argue that the action of the pouring
DOESN'T happen in the cup. It does happen in a larger context as well, but
there is no locative context which excludes the cup in which one could
validly argue the pouring occurs. The location of the pouring always
includes the cup. Pouring without the cup in this case is merely spilling or
leaking.
> I'm quite convinced that /HIvje'Daq yIqang/ works because the
> locative is a
> target, not the location of the action.
That's an interesting perspective. I'm trying to take it seriously and it
may very well be the most accurate way to see it, even if it's not the way I
see it, even when I try to see it that way.
> > > lupDujHomvo' qachDaq Sup Sub.
> > > The hero jumped from the shuttlecraft to the building.
> >
> > True. Meanwhile, if it were just {qachDaq Sup Sub}, most people would
> > interpret that to mean he was in the building and he jumped.
> Probably just
> > up and down.
>
> If you agree that the mere change of context changes the meaning of the
> sentence, then you must have agreed that the original sentence I provided
> does, in fact, show that /qachDaq/ is the target, not the location of the
> jumping. After all, /lupDujHomvo'/ only adds the context necessary for an
> interpretation.
If I say, "Throw that horse over the fence," What do you think?
Now, if I say, "Throw that horse over the fence a bale of hay," what do you
think?
Adding a phrase can definitely change the meaning of a sentence. In English,
if I say, "In the building, Fred jumped," you probably would not think he
jumped from somewhere else into the building. If I said, "Fred jumped into
the building," you would definitely get a different image. Meanwhile,
Klingon doesn't have separate prepositions for "in" and "into". Both carry
the same grammatical indicator {-Daq} and since the majority of translations
for {-Daq} indicate the location of the noun rather than the movement toward
the location of the noun, without further context it is more common to
interpret it as "in", at rather than "into"...
Okay. Sorry. Let's back up and look at what Okrand says about {-Daq}:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This suffix indicates that something is happening (or has happened or will
happen) in the vicinity of the noun to which it is attached. It is normally
translated by an English preposition: "to, in, at, on". [Note that "into" is
not on his initial list, though "to" is.] The exact translation is
determined by the meaning of the whole sentence. For example, {pa'Daq} is
{pa'} "room" plus the suffix {-Daq}. It may occur in setnece such as the
following:
{pa'Daq jIHtaH} "I'm in the room."
pa'Daq yIjaH "Go to the room."
[Hmmm. This is a good example for your argument. Meanwhile "go in", "go at"
and "go on" all basically mean the same thing as "go to". The verb is
naturally set up to imply that kind of context.]
In the first sentence, {jIH} "I" is used in the sense of "I am" (See section
6.3), so "in" is the most reasonable translation of {-Daq}. [Note that he is
pointing out how a specific verb will favor a particular translation of this
suffix.] In the second sentence, the verb is {jaH} "go" so "to" makes the
most sense as a translation of {-Daq}. [Again, he points out that a specific
verb will favor a specific translation of {-Daq}.]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<
Okrand has since then expanded his description of the use of {-Daq} in the
interview in HolQeD v7n4p9:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MO: {leng} works like {jaH}. These are all okay:
{yuQ vIleng} or {yuQDaq vIleng}
"I travel to the planet."
{yuQvo' jIleng.}
"I roam away from the planet."
{yuQDaQ jIleng.}
"I roam (around/about) on the planet."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Note that he is saying that {leng} and {jaH} are both special verbs in their
relationship to locatives. They can have locatives as direct objects. When
the locative is the direct object, it is the target of the motion. "I travel
to the planet." When the locative is not the direct object, it is the
location of the action, not the target of the action. The roaming occurs on
the planet.
He gives other examples of this in the interview, but citing them is
basically redundant. He consistently says that certain verbs can have
locatives as direct objects and those verbs, WHILE THE LOCATIVE IS THE
DIRECT OBJECT can use the locative as a target of their motion. Meanwhile,
even with these verbs, when the locative is just a locative and not the
direct object, the action occurs in the area of the locative and is not the
target of the action.
When you add a noun with {-vo'} before the noun with {-Daq} there is an
implied motion between the two nouns, but if you don't have this special
prompt and the locative is not the direct object of one of these special,
{ghoS}like verbs, I don't see any suggestion by Okrand that it is at all
normal to presume that a locative is the target of a verb and not the
location where the verb takes place. If he does believe this, he has avoided
a number of easy opportunities to explain this.
> "Most people" would probably say there isn't enough information
> to determine
> whether the jumping is happening in or toward the building, not that it's
> definitely in the building. YOU probably would, because that's the
> interpretation you would prefer to see, I think.
I don't see {Sup} as a verb of motion that is likely to take a locative as a
direct object. In fact, I don't see it as taking ANY direct object, though
certainly Okrand can reveal this to be wrong. I thought {jaH} couldn't take
a direct object, for example, and I was wrong. Meanwhile, in the interview,
I did not think to ask him about {jup}, so I guess that is not absolutely
certain. I honestly tried to test as many applicable verbs as possible.
On our ability to make presumptions about these verbs, in the beginning of
that interview:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WM: The one area that Klingonists have the most arguments about that we
can't resolve is transitivity of verbs. Are there any guidelines?
MO: I would not say there are any guidelines. Some verbs can take one noun.
Some take two. And it does not necessarily fall the way that English falls.
The way the dictionary is put together is not really helpful the way the
definitions are written.
WM: Right. Like {Dub} - "improve".
MO: Right. Although now we know from usage. The best way to know this is
from usage..."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<
While I'll always accept canon usage or description that changes what I
believe to be the most appropriate direct object for a verb, I honestly
believe we'll do best to not presume an expansion of the meaning of a verb
beyond the definition until that is reinforced by other evidence from
Okrand, especially in the area of appropriate nouns to act as direct object
of any given verb.
So far, I don't see evidence that {Sup} takes a direct object at all, and if
a locative is not being used as its direct object, I don't see evidence that
it should be interpreted as the target of the jumping, unless there is the
clear pairing of {X-vo' Y-Daq} suggesting a direction of motion.
> Without
> /lupDujHom/, there
> simply isn't enough information to determine what's happening.
> That's WHY I
> added /lupDujHom/. We know that the action is not already in or on the
> building, so we conclude that it's happening TOWARD the building.
> And with
> that context, you agreed that the grammar of the rest is probably valid.
I think this is a special context worthy of being treated as an exception to
the norm. Any verb works with this:
SaQejDaq qagh vISop.
veng wa'DIchvo' SaQejDaq qagh vISop.
The imagery here is radically different between these two.
Just like {Sup}, {Sop} does not tend to generally imply a change of
location. Use {-vo'} and {-Daq} you make it clear that the location of the
action is changing.
> By stripping /lupDujHom/ away, you simply demonstrate the importance of
> context.
It is interesting that you repeatedly avoid including the {-vo'} you used in
your original example.
> > > HewDaq jIlegh.
> > > I look at the statue.
> >
> > Totally wrong here. {legh} means "see" not "look".
>
> I stand corrected. But I think the point has been made.
> Locatives seem to
> work as targets, too.
When they are the direct object of a {ghoS}like verb of motion or when they
are part of a {-vo} {-Daq} pairing, then they work as targets. I don't
really know of any canon example or description that suggests that it works
as a target without these exceptional circumstances.
> At least, there's a little evidence that
> they do, and
> none that I can find that they don't. (Verbs of motion are a
> special case,
> as has been repeatedly established, and therefore do not apply to the
> discussion.)
Well, then I don't know of any examples that justify your position. I'm
willing to accept examples, but I don't remember you offering anything from
canon or any description by Okrand of things working as you suggest.
> Not in every case, of course, but the potential is there,
> under the right circumstances. Furthermore, I think it's a mistake to try
> to dictate what those circumstances might be for all verbs.
I'm much more interesting in discovering the right way to do this for EACH
verb. I don't believe that a verb can be used well until we know how it
handles the relationship with direct objects, indirect objects, locatives,
etc. I want to discover the best use of each verb in this context. It is not
so much that I want to make up a rule that says you can't use a verb the way
you want to use them. It's just that I have never seen an example of a verb
being used that way by Okrand and I don't see why you insist that they have
to be used that way. I see ways around this somewhat controversial use of
locatives with verbs, so I don't see a reason to take your interpretation.
> As
> demonstrated
> with the pouring example, our conclusions will be biased strongly by our
> preconceived notions, which have nothing to do with Klingon.
In particular, I'm trying to examine how each verb works so I can best use
it. I would certainly not try to use one interpretation of "pour" as a
justification for how some other unrelated verb should work. It seems like
you are the one trying to make rules here, at least as much as I am.
> SuStel
> Stardate 465.2
charghwI'