tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 05 01:09:34 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 2:30 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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.
I can tell, I'm on SuStel's hit list again.
Okay, the Oxford Concise Dictionary lists the grammatical function of
"oblique" as "a noun of any case other than nominative". According to that,
I'm 0% wrong.
The Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary says "a noun of any case except
nominative and vocative". That would make me 50% wrong and definitely
doesn't make you right.
The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary has a couple pages of
listings for "oblique" and its grammatical reference says, "a noun of any
case except nominative or vocative (or sometimes nominative, vocative or
accusative)". That would make me 66.7% wrong and you right, but then, that
edition is from the 1920s and is more useful for historical use of words
than current usage.
And yes, I do own that many dictionaries.
In any case, the exact grammatical meaning of "oblique" seems just a little
bit vague for one to come across with such vitrolic authority.
> 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 checked three. The most obsolete of the three agrees with you.
> 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.
Ahhh, but is it 100% close enough? We must keep our statistics accurate,
after all.
> The
> word most certainly does not refer to any non-subject.
1/3 of all surveyed dictionary authors disagrees with you.
> 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.
I will certainly agree to consider it odd.
> 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.
The only reason I picked on the word is that I think in terms of
understanding verbs, the more widely agreed definition of "oblique" is even
more useful, since whether a noun should be used as a direct object, a
beneficiary/indirect object or a locative simply varies from one verb to
another. Learning this is part of learning the definition of a word. You
can't use a verb well if you don't know the particular nouns that are
acceptable for these oblique grammatical roles.
> 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."
Well, according to what you just quoted, you might just as well call them
"other" nouns. "Subjects", "objects" and "other". This is keeping with the
spirit of the Klingon grammatical term {chuvmey}.
Why not just call them "Type 5 suffixed" nouns? Exceptions are rare.
> > 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.
Suffixes are syntactical markers as much as word position. The syntax is the
grammar. Each individual verb has a limited set of grammatical potentials
for non-subject nouns. Every verb can have a subject, but many cannot have a
direct object. Some can have a direct object, but no indirect object. Others
can have both direct and indirect object. {ja'} and {jatlh} make for an
interesting pair of verbs because of their differences in what constitutes a
valid direct object. This is what I'm talking about.
> 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?).
Without syntax, there is no expression. Syntax is simply the rules used that
allow expression. Syntax is the structure upon which symantic elements rest.
> This sentence consists of the following
> types of words as seen by Klingon linguists:
>
> one subject
> one verb
> one object
> three oblique nouns
Or, by the definitions of two dictionaries, and the less parenthetical
definition in the third:
one subject
one verb
four 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.
Syntax involves more than word position. It also involves suffixes. It
involves prefixes, for that matter.
> 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.
Meanwhile, the NOUN is part of the SENTENCE, and the suffix defines the
grammatical function of the NOUN, so it is most definitely a part of the
SYNTAX of the SENTENCE.
My caps lock works, as well as yours does.
> 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
I think you have. Before, it had an indirect object. Now, it doesn't. Now,
it has a kind of noun phrase that Maltz apparently has no name for.
> 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.
I'd be curious about how many others agree.
> But I believe you'd see it radically differently.
Not radically, but definitely different, and not different in any especially
interesting way.
> 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.
Indeed, it is. It is a puzzle I very much enjoy.
> I used to see it that way.
But, of course, you've outgrown my immature ways. How nice.
> 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.)
So, that's what it REALLY is, is it? Thank you for making that all clear for
me.
> 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 {ja'} has a potential to support a direct object and a locative and
you've found appropriate nouns to take that support.
> > 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.
It will realize the grammatical potential of that verb to support that noun
to serve that grammatical function in the sentence.
> The indirect object of /jatlh/ is not a grammatical
> necessity of Klingon.
The direct object of {jatlh} is also not a grammatical necessity of Klingon.
The subject is the only grammatically required noun in a Klingon sentence,
and even that can be implied by the prefix.
> The noun+/-vaD/ is an oblique noun that expresses
> whom the action is directed to, or who is the beneficiary of the action.
"whom the action is directed to" can also be expressed as "indirect object".
> 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/.
You could as easily say, "I want to express the fact that the speech is what
I'm giving the captain, but it doesn't fit in the subject or indirect object
function. Therefore it must be the direct object. Thus, I use {SoQ}.
> > 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!!
While you argue strongly, I really don't see myself as disagreeing with you
on this. We may choose different words to express it, but what you describe
fits what I believe.
> Man, it's all so simple! And yet, I don't think I can explain it
> to you so
> that you'll understand it.
Are you being condescending, or humble? Are you assuming my limited capacity
to understand your wisdom, or is it your inability to express your
understanding? Whatever the case, it doesn't sound good.
> It's just so simple, yet so powerful,
> that it's
> wonderfully elegant. Don't you see it?
You apparently assume that I can't.
> > 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.
You do have a unique style of expressing yourself. So do I, I suppose.
> 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.
A suffix is a syntactical feature. It indicates a grammatical function.
> 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.
Enjoy the experience.
> [...]
> > 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.)
On a message this long, it is possible for the mind to wander. I will
attempt to comply with your command better this 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.
So, offer me some guidance as to when one might recognize this huge whoppin'
difference between generic verbs that can't take a destination vs. one that
might indicate a targe given the right circumstances.
> 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.
What about all those people who pray toward Mecca? I sleep toward North. My
feet are next to my South-facing window.
> 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 see why you want it to make sense both ways, but I'm simply not sure you
are right. Krankor wanted {vIH} to make sense with a direct object or
without one, but that's not how that verb works. You are taking a longer
leap here than you are willing to admit.
> 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./
The discussion was becoming convoluted. I was hoping that I could express my
ideas more clearly all in one place. This goal apparently failed.
> 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)
I've already answered this one. A Klingon perspective could very easily be
that the action of pouring simply happens in the glass. English lacks a verb
referring to the action of pouring with the idea that it is happening in the
"target" location, but that says nothing about the Klingon verb. If that is
what the Klingon verb means, then the most concise definition of it would
still be "pour".
> HIvje'Daq
> This is specifically translated for the above sentence as "into a drinking
> vessel." (KGT 118)
That's exactly how it would be translated even if the verb has the meaning
of pouring action occurring in the glass.
> 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)
I don't have anything new to add here. Same as above, but I wouldn't want to
leave this space blank, lest you get upset because I appeared to ignore your
example.
> jIHDaq Daqang.
> Your pour [something] into me. (KGT 159)
Typo. Meanwhile, if the verb {qang} behaves as I describe it above, this
makes exactly as much sense as the previous examples.
> jIHDaq
> This is specifically translated as "in/at me" referring to the sentence
> above. (KGT 159)
The "in" part works fine with that interpretation of the verb.
> 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.
Exactly.
> pa' jIyIt'a'?
> Can I walk there? (CK, visiting places)
> /pa'/ is one of the three words which are locative without /-Daq/.
{yIt} may very well be one of the {ghoS} verbs I forgot to check out in the
interview. I'd expect it to behave like {jaH}.
> tachDaq choDor'a'?
> Will you escort me to a bar? (CK, bar)
The question then becomes, as a finer point of meaning, is {Dor} the thing
one does on the way to the bar, or is it what one does while at the bar. If
the former, then it may also be a verb of motion that might behave like
{jaH} and {ghoS}. If the latter, then the translation may be slightly loose
in order to fit English convention and the action happens in the location
context of the locative, just like a normal verb.
> naDev Dochvetlh qem
> Bring that here. (PK, pets)
Like "pouring" "bringing" may very well be a verb in Klingon that is
perceived as occurring at the ending location. Even though it does involve
motion, it is unlikely to be a {ghoS}-like verb because the direct object
spot is already filled with a different class of noun: things brought.
Meanwhile, if the Klingon word refers to the action as it occurs at the
destination...
To be clearer, in English, if you "bring me the hammer", then "bring" is the
thing you do from the moment you pick up the hammer to the moment that you
hand me the hammer. In Klingon, "bring" may only be the thing you do when
you hand me the hammer, having English-brought it from somewhere else.
> 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)
I vaguely remember this line explained as a back-fit so that the syllables
were written to mean one thing, but they were regrouped to mean something
else. I wish I could remember better. In any case, I would expect it more
the case that the locative for {batch} would ALWAYS be the target, and not
just "might be the target, depending on the context". Like {qang}, this
could be a verb which is very similar to the English gloss, except that the
meaning, to a Klingon, is an action that occurs at the target and not at the
shooter. It occurs FROM the shooter, not in the location of the shooter.
You can argue as much as you want about where the action happens for the
English version of the verb. That still says nothing about what the Klingon
verb really means.
> 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.
I have no qualms about that.
> logh veQDaq bachchugh, yoH 'e' toblaHbe' SuvwI'.
This seems to be a repeat of the earlier line.
> nImbuS wejDaq 'ejDo' 'entepray' ngoHlu'pu'.
> The starship Enterprise has been dispatched to Nimbus III. (ST5)
Again, my question is, considering the meaning to a Klingon of this Klingon
verb, is this an action that ever happens anywhere except the location we
interpret to be the target? If not, then this is not a "context dependent"
interpretation. This action always occurs at the target. You dispatch it
FROM the source and the dispatching actually occurs at the target.
I know that sounds weird, but can you come up with a good example of X-Daq Y
ngoHlu' where X is NOT the target?
> raSDaq jenva' vItatlh
> I return the plate to the table. (startrek.klingon, July 18, 1999)
Once again, is there a case where X-Daq Y vItatlh uses X-Daq to refer to a
location OTHER than the target? If not, then I'd argue that to a Klingon,
the action of {tatlh} actually occurs at the target. This is not a context
dependent translation.
> pa'Daq jItatlh'egh
> I return to the room. (startrek.klingon, July 18, 1999)
Do I really need to repeat my explanations in order to respect the trouble
you've gone to in collecting these examples?
> 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)
I'm not convinced that Okrand didn't conceptualize {jaH} as being
{ghoS}-like before announcing it. After all, he was not announcing it in
order to explain any change to the way these verbs worked. He was answering
explicit questions about things he had likely decided years earlier.
This is a verb of motion.
> jolpa'Daq yIjaH
> Go to the transport room! (TKD 73)
Same here.
> 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."
In this case, Okrand is either forgetting another {lu-} or {loghDaq} is not
the direct object. Meanwhile, it doesn't have to be. Again the X-vo' Y-Daq
pattern suggests motion between two points with {-Daq} marking the second
point. This is not context dependent.
> pa'lIjDaq yIjaH!
> Go to your room! (CK, renting a room)
Verb of motion.
> ghorgh pa'wIjDaq jIchegh?
> When can I return to my room? (CK, visiting places)
This is not a direct object. The action of returning occurs in the room. In
this case, I believe that {chegh} is similar to {paw}. In English, we
actually have two meanings for "return". One is what you do the whole time
you move from point A to point B, while the other is what you do at point B.
I'd wager that Klingon uses the latter model.
> naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
> Can we get to the Great Hall from here? (PK, section on jokes)
X-vo' Y-Daq. This is not context dependent.
> 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)
Again, X-vo' Y-Daq.
> 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.
Nor did I. It is very late. I am very tired.
pItlh.
charghwI'