tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 02 23:31:33 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Deixis and direction



jatlh charghwI':
> 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.

You are 100% wrong.  An oblique noun is one which does not express the
nominative or vocative cases (or those two and the accusative case).  Please
check your dictionary.  I do remember someone (I think it was Holtej)
mentioning that the term might not be absolutely correct to refer to the
non-subjects and non-objects of Klingon, but I think it's close enough.  The
word most certainly does not refer to any non-subject.

I've used "oblique" in quotes to indicate that it is being used to refer to
Klingon, not Latin or English, and that it may be considered odd because of
the very different nature of Klingon, and it hasn't been used by Okrand.
But using it to refer to a noun which is not subject and not object is
pretty close.  I'll continue to call them oblique nouns for the purposes of
this discussion.  If anyone has a legitimate reason why they shouldn't be
called this, tell me and I'll cease using it.

Please note that there is plenty of reason for this.  As Okrand says in THE
KLINGON DICTIONARY, p. 60: "Any noun in the sentence indicating something
other than subject or object comes first, before the object noun."  Nouns in
Klingon sentences can be "subjects," "objects," or "oblique nouns."

> 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?

Aha!  Ahaha!  I get it!  I see why we disagree so much!!

"Locatives" are not a grammatical part of syntax.  They are a type of noun.
There is no "locative" position in a sentence.  "Beneficiary" and "indirect
object" are not part of Klingon syntax.  They are indicated by oblique
nouns.  "Timestamp" is not a part of Klingon syntax.  It is represented by
an oblique noun.

DaHjaj vaS'a'Daq ta'vaD betleH Del HoD.
The captain described the batleth to the Emperor in the Great Hall today.

This sentence has elements indicating time, location, beneficiary, object,
action, and subject.  However, not all of these are syntactically expressed
(if that's the right phrase?).  This sentence consists of the following
types of words as seen by Klingon linguists:

one subject
one verb
one object
three oblique nouns

The sort of oblique noun that appears provides more information.  But there
is no syntactic significance.  There may be appropriate words for particular
verbs or situations, but verbs do not have locative positions and indirect
objects which are different from beneficiaries (he clarified and expanded
the MEANING of /-vaD/, but did not change the grammar of the Klingon
sentence in doing so).  Verbs only have a subject position, an object
position, and an indefinite number of oblique positions.

When you're constructing a sentence, you have to know what the appropriate
subject and object for the verb are.  After that, anything that isn't a
subject or object is probably an oblique noun.  /-Daq/, /-mo'/, /-vaD/, and
so on aren't part of the SENTENCE, they're part of the NOUN.

DaHjaj vaS'a'Daq ta'mo' betleH Del HoD.
Because of the Emperor, the captain described the batleth in the Great Hall.

I have NOT changed the grammar of this sentence.  It still has

one subject
one verb
one object
three oblique nouns

I simply changed one of the oblique nouns.  It was /ta'vaD/ "for the
emperor," and now it's /ta'mo'/ "because of the emperor."  The grammar is
totally unchanged.

But I believe you'd see it radically differently.  You've got a complex,
dizzying array of structures, of locative functions of verbs, if/thens of
indirect objects, all of it linked and interlinked and twisted around.
You've turned your understanding of Klingon into a magnificent jigsaw
puzzle.  I used to see it that way.  Now I see it for what it really is: a
child's building blocks that fit ever so neatly together, with no odd shapes
or corners.  (Never mind the odd construction here or there, the inevitable
exception to the rules.  Even in a child's building blocks set, you've got a
few extra, odd pieces for variety.)

jatlh charghwI':
> 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 /ja'/ has the person being spoken to as the object.  It has the
person speaking as the subject.  Anything else is expressed by an
appropriate oblique noun.  If there is no appropriate oblique noun, then you
must find another way to express the sentence.  The only "grammatical slots"
that exist at all are subject, object, and oblique noun.  You don't put the
person being spoken to into an oblique noun spot, because it goes in the
object noun spot.  In /DujDaq HoD vIja'/, "I told the captain on the ship,"
I didn't put /Duj/ in the locative position; I put /DujDaq/ in the oblique
noun position.  /DujDaq/ is something I want to express, yet it doesn't go
in as the subject or as the object.

> 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.

The verb /jatlh/ has the speaker as its subject, and the speech or language
as its object.  Anything else is an oblique noun.  If you want to mention a
listener in the sentence, adding /-vaD/ to that noun will make the
appropriate word.  The indirect object of /jatlh/ is not a grammatical
necessity of Klingon.  The noun+/-vaD/ is an oblique noun that expresses
whom the action is directed to, or who is the beneficiary of the action.
When you speak of the beneficiary of the verb /jatlh/, it means you're
talking about the person hearing the speech.  /HoDvaD SoQ vIjatlh/ "I gave a
speech to the captain."  I want to express the fact that the captain is
listening to the speech, but it doesn't fit in the subject or object
position.  Therefore, it must be an oblique noun, and I want to express it
as an indirect object.  Thus, I use /HoDvaD/.

> 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.

This is the really telling difference right here.  Verbs of motion aren't as
complex as all that.  I see it the nice, simple way, which provides exactly
the same results.

The verbs of motion have the person or thing moving as the subject.  The
course or target or endpoint of motion is the object.  Anything else is an
oblique noun.  Exactly the same as before.  The ONLY difference here, is
that Okrand's allowed the object noun to be a locative.  Clearly, this is
because that's what the object's representing anyway.

The question is not "how are locatives handled for these verbs."  The object
of the verb is not playing a grammatical role of "noun marking the
location."  It is playing the grammatical role of object.  It just so
happens that in every case of a verb of motion, the object noun IS the
location.  This is why Klingons sometimes put the locative suffix on these
object nouns.  The locative suffix is NOT a grammatical function of the
sentence, it's merely an element of a word which refers to a location!!

Man, it's all so simple!  And yet, I don't think I can explain it to you so
that you'll understand it.  It's just so simple, yet so powerful, that it's
wonderfully elegant.  Don't you see it?

> 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.

If/then.  If/then.  If/then.

Try it this way, to generalize.

<oblique noun> <object> <verb of motion> <subject>.

In all cases, <subject> is moving in relation toward (or in relation to)
object.  Anything else is oblique.  End of story.

What makes these verbs special is not where their locative is.  They don't
own a locative slot.  No verbs own a locative spot.  What makes them special
is that their object noun is allowed to BE a locative.  A locative is a noun
with /-Daq/ at the end of it.  A locative is not a special grammatical
feature of Klingon syntax.

So what about <oblique noun>?  It's anything that can't be the subject or
object.  This is why if you have /bIQtIqDaq jIleng/, it has to mean "I
travel in the river" and not "I travel to the river."  If it meant "I travel
to the river," the object would be /bIQtIq/, and it wouldn't BE an oblique
noun.  See?  It's totally trivial.  It's so simple it's breathtaking.

[...]
> 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.

WHAT?!?!?  What about the whole LIST of canon examples I spent HOURS looking
up?!?!?  Would you care to explain WHY you don't think they apply?!?

I shall repeat all of those examples once again at the end of this message.
Please read them.  Please comment on them.  Do not ignore them.  (I wonder
if you actually read them the first time.)

> 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 did not say ANY verb can have a locative noun indicating destination.  I'm
saying that it's possible that a locative noun MIGHT indicate a destination
or target given the right circumstances.  There's a HUGE WHOPPIN' DIFFERENCE
there.  For some verbs, a locative noun won't be appropriate to indicate a
target.  For instance, /yuQDaq jIQong/ simply cannot mean "I sleep toward
the planet."  It doesn't mean this because it makes no sense.  But /yuQDaq
'otlh peng vIbach/ CAN mean "I shoot a photon torpedo at the planet," though
it doesn't HAVE to.  It might also mean "I shoot the photon torpedo [while I
am] on the planet."  It makes sense both ways.  It's possible both ways.

I'm also rather disappointed that you simply ignored the discussion as it
was going.  I'd very much like to hear your comments on the rest of my last
post, rather than your erroneous restatements of what you think I said, and
your complete ignoring of everything else.  /bIjangchu'neS 'e' vItul./


SuStel
Stardate 504.5


Canon examples of verbs where a locative noun indicates a target or
destination:

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.


Back to archive top level