tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 02 21:44:32 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Deixis and direction



I have to respond to this, if for no other reason, to point out that an
"oblique" noun is simply a noun used for any grammatical function other than
subject of the verb. SuStel seems to be using it to mean "any noun used for
some function other than subject or object of the verb", but that would be
his personal interpretation of the word and not the actual meaning of the
word in grammatical context.

Meanwhile, having one class of nouns referred to as "oblique" is the whole
crux of my interest in this, because part of the definition of any verb (if
you really want to understand any given verb) is only explained by
considering which oblique nouns are handled with which grammatical function.
Is an oblique noun to be handled as a direct object, or as an indirect
object, or as a locative?

The verb {ja'} has the person being spoken to (an oblique noun) treated as
the direct object (an oblique function for a noun). There is no grammatical
slot left open for {Hol} or {mu'mey} or speeches or addresses. This verb
can't handle these oblique nouns at all.

The verb {jatlh} has the person being spoken to (an oblique noun) treated as
an indirect object, so {-vaD} is added. {Hol} or {mu'mey} or speeches or
addresses (all oblique nouns) are handled grammatically as direct objects.

Verbs of motion, like {ghoS} and {jaH} and other specific verbs are somewhat
unique because locatives (oblique nouns) can either be handled as locatives
(an oblique function) or as direct objects (also an oblique function). The
suffix {-Daq} is optional when the noun marking the location is acting as
the direct object, but it is required if the locative is not the direct
object. Meanwhile, the meaning shifts between these two cases.

If the oblique noun is the direct object (with or without {-Daq}), then the
noun marks the destination of the motion. If the oblique noun has {-Daq} and
is not the direct object of the verb, then the oblique noun is marking the
location context of the action of the verb.

This differentiated pair of meanings does not exist for most verbs because
for most verbs, nouns with {-Daq} cannot be treated as direct objects. That
means that the ability to make a locative the destination of a verb's action
is an exceptional trait offered to this special class of verb. Other verbs
can't do this.

Another exception is created when the location context of a verb is
expressed with a pair of oblique nouns implying direction because one
oblique noun is marked with {-vo'} and the one following it is marked with
{-Daq}. Now, you are not merely indicating a location context, but a
starting location and an ending location. Given that interpretation, you
could consider the ending location to be a destination as opposed to a
simple location context.

There is no reason to interpret a simple location context as an ending
location if there is no mention of a beginning location just as there is no
reason to consider a locative oblique noun to imply destination if the verb
is not a member of the special class of verbs that can take locative nouns
as direct objects. These are all exceptional cases.

We do not, to my knowledge, have any canon examples of Okrand using
locatives to mark destinations of the action of a verb unless the location
is expressed as an X-vo' Y-Daq pair or unless the verb is one of the
exceptional verbs of motion AND the locative is the direct object of that
verb.

Given this, I have a hard time accepting SuStel's interpretation that any
verb can use a {-Daq} marked oblique noun as a destination solely depending
upon the context of the discussion. I especially take exception to the idea
that this unusual interpretation is so common and ordinary that lacking
sufficient context to know for sure, it would be presumptious to assume that
the normal interpretation of a locative as the location context of a verb is
accurate, because it may very well be that what I consider to be a highly
controversial interpretation -- that the locative is the destination of the
action and not the location of the action -- is what is actually intended.

charghwI'

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 10:08 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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



Back to archive top level