tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 02 19:10:00 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deixis and direction
jIjatlh:
> > Doesn't the pouring happen in the room where I'm standing while pouring?
jatlh charghwI':
> 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.
Well then we're going to have to disagree. And if we disagree on this one
point, we must by necessity disagree on the semantic structure of /HIvje'Daq
yIqang/. As far as I'm concerned, if you're trying to pinpoint a location
for where the action of "pouring" takes place, it can either be assumed to
be the place that the pourer is, or the mouth of the container which the
liquid is coming FROM. If you took a pitcher of water and a cup, put the
cup on the ground outside a building, walked up to the top floor of that
building, and poured the water so that it ended up in the cup, the action of
pouring would be happening somewhere at the top of the building, not down in
the cup.
This difference of opinion as to how the ENGLISH works is exactly why I
think we need to avoid proclaiming absolute subject, objects, etc. for
Klingon verbs, unless there is no question by the vast majority of speakers.
We're necessarily biased by our native language. Imagine a group of people,
identical to ourselves except that they speak Basque. They have their own
mailing list for Klingon, and they're discussing, arguing, debating, and
Okrand also happened to write a Basque Klingon Dictionary and identical
Klingon canon translated into Basque. Some of them will want to catalogue
each and every Klingon verb's transitivity, subjects, objects, and so forth.
I'm utterly convinced that they'd develop a far different understanding of
Klingon semantics than we have even though they've got exactly the same
sources.
jIjatlh:
> > > > lupDujHomvo' qachDaq Sup Sub.
> > > > The hero jumped from the shuttlecraft to the building.
jatlh charghwI':
> > > 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.
jIjatlh:
> > 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.
jatlh charghwI':
> 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.
Of course it can. But what you've just done is far different than what I
did. I did not change the grammatical function of any part of my sentence.
You did.
qachDaq Sup Sub.
qachDaq = "oblique" noun
Sup = verb
Sub = subject
lupDujHomvo' qachDaq Sup Sub.
lupDujHomvo' = "oblique" noun
qachDaq = "oblique noun"
Sup = verb
Sub = subject
Throw that horse over the fence.
Throw = verb
that horse = direct object
over the fence = prepositional phrase
Throw that horse over the fence a bale of hay.
Throw = verb
that horse ([which is] over the fence) = indirect object
over the fence = prepositional phrase
a bale of hay = direct object
You didn't just add context; you changed the grammar of the sentence.
Adding words isn't what I'm talking about. Adding context without changing
the grammar of the sentence is. My point is, with the right context, /-Daq/
seems quite right to indicate a target. Without that context, it doesn't
necessarily mean something else; it means you don't have sufficient
information to discern its exact meaning.
qachDaq Sup Sub.
Here you know that a hero jumps, and you know that the jumping has something
to do with the location of a building. That's all the sentence says. It
doesn't tell you whether he jumps in, on, or at the building.
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.
If you said "Fred jumped in the car," I would have no idea whether you meant
he was in the car jumping up and down, or outside the car jumping in. I
need more context.
If you say "Fred jumped in the building," I would tend to think that Fred
was jumping up and down inside the building. However, this would not be
because of a more common interpretation of the preposition's relation to the
act of jumping. It would be because it's a hell of a lot easier and more
common to jump around inside a building than to be outside one and jump into
it. Furthermore, because English DOES have the preposition "into" (a
distinction which Klingon lacks), one would expect this preposition to be
used instead of "in," to clarify the interpretation. See my next paragraph.
jatlh charghwI':
> [...] 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"...
If one does not have further context, one must expect the possibility that
one's interpretation might be wrong. The most commonly used interpretation
of a construction is not automatically the right one. This has been central
to my whole /Sup Sub/ example.
jatlh Okrand:
> {pa'Daq jIHtaH} "I'm in the room."
> pa'Daq yIjaH "Go to the room."
jatlh charghwI':
> [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.]
Since Okrand declared the verbs of motion to be special cases, they have
ceased to be useful indicators of the way Klingon works. All understanding
of the language we have previously accepted from analysis of "canon" with
these verbs is now suspect. This is one of my big gripes with the verbs of
motion exception. We lose a lot of ordinary examples to special cases.
I don't want to think too hard about /pa'Daq yIjaH/, because /jaH/ is one of
the verbs of motion. To be perfectly honest, the I think the reason we see
this here is because when Okrand wrote it, /pa'Daq/ WAS acting as a target,
and the whole idea of the verbs of motion being exceptional hadn't yet been
developed.
jatlh Okrand:
> {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.
These are the exceptional verbs we now know about. They are not ordinary
verbs. They have been specifically defined as the following:
<"oblique" noun locative> = location where the motion takes place
<object noun, locative or not locative> = target of motion
Every verb of motion has its object defined as the target of that motion.
It has nothing to do with whether the object has the locative suffix or not.
Since the target must be the object, any other locative noun in the sentence
must be the location where the movement takes place. There's no mystery
here, and it has nothing to do with the "pouring" example. The verbs of
motion are special cases.
jatlh charghwI':
> 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.
I agree with the first, long sentence completely. If there is no context
with which to judge, and you're not talking about a verb of motion, then
there's no reason to presume that a locative noun is the target of the verb.
I agree with this. However, you think it IS normal to presume that the
locative is the where the action takes place. I see no reason to presume
THIS, either. It's certainly more USUAL, but not NECESSARY.
And you haven't said in this statement what you think of the situation in
which there IS special context, such as in my /Sup Sub/ example. It seems
to me that you think a locative in such a situation CANNOT be a target. I
am suggesting that it MIGHT be a target, that it's not semantically illegal
to be a target.
jIjatlh:
> > "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.
jatlh charghwI':
> 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.
Why are you relating this to verbs of motion? I wasn't trying to use /Sup/
as a verb of motion. If it WERE a verb of motion, I would agree completely
that any non-object locative sitting at the beginning of the sentence must
be where the action takes place, and not the target. That's part of the new
definition of verbs of motion. But it isn't one of those as far as we know,
so I'm not going to treat it like one.
jatlh charghwI':
> 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.
Aha. You DO agree that a locative before /Sup/ might be interpreted as a
target. You DO agree that it is not illegal. Now our only disagreement is
that you think that additional context is REQUIRED for it to mean this, and
I think that it can mean either without the context, the job of context
being to disambiguate. I also agree that the location interpretation is
more common than the target interpretation, but I don't agree that this more
common interpretation must necessarily be the correct interpretation when
lacking context.
I say that /qachDaq Sup Sub/ CAN mean "The hero jumps onto the building,"
though all by itself the reader may not catch on to that. The sentence
merely says that the hero jumps, and the building has a locative
relationship to the sentence.
jatlh charghwI':
> 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.
Precisely. The locative noun can either be the location of an action, or
the target of an action. The job of context is to tell us which one it is.
My claim, once again, is that it CAN mean either when lacking the
appropriate context, whether or not the listener picks up on the correct
meaning. A lack of context in a sentence does not mean the context does not
exist in reality. It's up to the speaker to provide the right context.
jIjatlh:
> > 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.
Okay: by stripping /lupDujHomvo'/ away, you simply demonstrate the
importance of context.
jIjatlh:
> > Locatives seem to
> > work as targets, too.
jatlh charghwI':
> 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.
They don't have to be part of a /-vo/ /-Daq/ pair. It can be any context.
Consider:
lupDujHom chIjlI' Sub. qach Dung ghoSlI'. pawDI', lupDujHom lojmIt poSmoH.
qach yor buS. Suprup. qachDaq Sup Sub.
Here's a situation where context makes it quite clear (I believe) that the
hero is NOT inside the building when he jumps. I simply do not believe that
/qachDaq/ is inappropriate for the last sentence.
jIjatlh:
> > 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.)
jatlh charghwI':
> 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.
latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIqang!
Pour the cold bloodwine into another glass! (KGT 118)
HIvje'Daq
This is specifically translated for the above sentence as "into a drinking
vessel." (KGT 118)
latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr vIqang
I pour the cold bloodwine into another glass.
A literal variation of the idiom, just to show that the idiom does not mean
the grammar is wrong. (KGT 118)
jIHDaq Daqang.
Your pour [something] into me. (KGT 159)
jIHDaq
This is specifically translated as "in/at me" referring to the sentence
above. (KGT 159)
ghopDu'wIjDaq yInmeyraj vIlaj.
I accept your lives into my hands. (KGT 184)
This is borderline, as one might argue that the "accepting" happens "in" the
hands, not "into" the hands.
pa' jIyIt'a'?
Can I walk there? (CK, visiting places)
/pa'/ is one of the three words which are locative without /-Daq/.
tachDaq choDor'a'?
Will you escort me to a bar? (CK, bar)
naDev Dochvetlh qem
Bring that here. (PK, pets)
logh veQ-Daq bach-chugh, yoH 'e' tob-laH-be' Suv-wI'.
Shooting space gargage is no test of a warrior's mettle. (HolQeD 4:8, p. 11)
Yes, yes, this line from Star Trek V was superceded by an incorrectly placed
line, but guess what? This is what Okrand had intended them to say! It was
written by him, and shows his thinking in the construction of the sentence.
logh veQDaq bachchugh, yoH 'e' toblaHbe' SuvwI'.
nImbuS wejDaq 'ejDo' 'entepray' ngoHlu'pu'.
The starship Enterprise has been dispatched to Nimbus III. (ST5)
raSDaq jenva' vItatlh
I return the plate to the table. (startrek.klingon, July 18, 1999)
pa'Daq jItatlh'egh
I return to the room. (startrek.klingon, July 18, 1999)
For further evidence, I shall show those sentences which were constructed
before Okrand announced his verbs of motion change/revelation, which
possibly indicate other examples of his thoughts working the way I say they
did.
pa'Daq yIjaH
Go to the room! (TKD 27)
jolpa'Daq yIjaH
Go to the transport room! (TKD 73)
juHqo' Qo'noSvo' loghDaq lengtaHvIS tlhInganpu' . . .
During the [aggressive] expansion of the Klingon people from their homeworld
Kronos into space . . . (SkyBox SP1)
This one is questionable, as it might just as well be thought of as
traveling "in space" as "into space."
pa'lIjDaq yIjaH!
Go to your room! (CK, renting a room)
ghorgh pa'wIjDaq jIchegh?
When can I return to my room? (CK, visiting places)
naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
Can we get to the Great Hall from here? (PK, section on jokes)
tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq jIlengpu'.
I've traveled all over the place. (Literally, "From area-southwestward to
area-northwestward, to area-eastward) (HolQeD 8:4, p. 8)
Actually, this one comes AFTER he changed his mind, but it still follows the
old thinking.
I did not install and run Star Trek: Klingon to check that for sentences.
jIjatlh:
> > 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.
jatlh charghwI':
> I'm much more interesting in discovering the right way to do this for EACH
> verb.
Geez. That's what I meant. Each verb. Each and every verb. As Okrand
says in your interview with him, "What I've learned is to never say never."
You asked him about the transitivity of /vIH/, and he gave it to you, and
then he said, "Though again, down the road . . . ." Going and pinning down
the exact properties of each and every verb doesn't take into account all of
the irregularities and special cases of Klingon. I'd much rather that we
simply try to get an IDEA of how each and every verb works.
jatlh charghwI':
> 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 didn't insist that they have to be used that way. I suggested that it's
POSSIBLE to use them that way, and I've found far more canon than I expected
to show that is HAS been used that way.
jatlh charghwI':
> I see ways around this somewhat controversial use of
> locatives with verbs, so I don't see a reason to take your interpretation.
Being able to circumvent a proposed solution does not make the solution
invalid.
> > 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.
I never tried to suggest that your interpretation of the word "pour" would
influence how you thought of other verbs. I did suggest that our differing
interpretations of the word "pour" has led us to differing interpretations
of /HIvje'Daq yIqang/. I'm not sure what kind of rules you think I'm trying
to make up; I said that there was a little evidence to support my
interpretation of locatives acting as targets (and in fact it turns out
there's a lot of evidence to support this). If you say, "You can't," and I
say, "Maybe you can," who's making rules?
Anyway, I'm feeling much better about the whole verbs of motion thing now
that I've found examples that other verbs haven't been restricted by them.
I feel confident that locative nouns, in general, can be where the action
occurs or the target of the action.
SuStel
Stardate 504.0