tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 04 22:09:55 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
ja' charghwI':
>Is an oblique noun to be handled as a direct object, or as an indirect
>object, or as a locative?
That seems rather a backwards question to be asking. First, recognize that
present context is that a "direct object" is not an "oblique" noun. The
term "othernoun" might be preferable for a while in order to avoid
overloading an existing grammatical term. Second, understand that 1) what
we call direct objects in English grammar are simple objects in Klingon
grammar and appear in a specific spot in the sentence without overt
marking; 2) what we call indirect objects in English grammar generally
manifest themselves as beneficiaries in Klingon grammar and thus have a
{-vaD} on them; and 3) locatives (with specific exceptions) have a {-Daq}
on them. Ambiguity can arise when multiple clauses are involved, but
there's really no confusion about how to handle any specific noun in a
simple well-formed Klingon sentence.
>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.
You're apparently treating Klingon grammar as if it had "slots" the way
Lojban does. SuStel's "slotless" interpretation is pretty compelling,
treating simple Klingon sentences as having verbs, subjects, optional
objects, and any number of additional non-subject, non-object nouns. {ja'}
certainly can handle locatives and beneficiaries and reasons and time
markers. The reason you won't see {Hol} as an "othernoun" is semantic, not
grammatical.
>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.
You've missed the intended exception of direct objects from the category of
"oblique" nouns. But I think you're also missing another bit of reasoning.
A language or "speaking event" appears as the direct object of {jatlh}, but
the grammatical structure is subordinate to the semantic roles of the
entities surrounding the action. {Hol} is semantically the recipient of
the action, thus it is the direct object of the verb. When you concentrate
on the question of "what is the direct object of the verb?", you are
focusing on the grammar while neglecting the underlying semantics of the
situation. I honestly think you're being unduly strict in your attempts to
model verbs' meanings in grammatical instead of semantic terms.
>...
>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.
Exceptions upon exceptions...you're making this much more difficult than
necessary. It's so much simpler to consider that "the location of an
action" might be either the place where the action occurs or the place
where the action ends up.
>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.
SuStel has (twice) presented such examples. You quoted them in the same
note in which you said you don't have knowledge of them. {tachDaq
choDor'a'?} sticks in my mind as a perfect case of a locative being used to
mark a destination.
>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.
After considering it briefly, I think assuming that locatives apply to the
destination of the action is pretty safe. After all, when one jumps on a
train, one ends up on the train whether or not one started there. Other
context is necessary to determine where one was when one began the action.
If an ensign fires on a ship, something in the vicinity of the ship is
going to get hit. But was the ensign standing in the ship's phaser range
aiming at a blinking target on the wall, or was he engaged in battle using
another ship's phaser banks to attack? Without further context, "they ran
inside the building" could mean a couple of things, but "they" are in the
building at the end of the running. [With verbs like {jaH}, we're pretty
confident that an overt locative would be intended to describe where the
action takes place instead of the destination of the motion, because the
specific role of the object is to indicate the destination, but they're an
exception to the general case.]
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh