tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 06 19:15:54 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 1:10 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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.
First I want to compliment you on the clarity of your explanation. Second, I
want to compliment you on being better than I've been at not insulting
anyone while making your point. I'm inspired by this and will try to improve
myself.
Meanwhile, we each see the other person's question as backwards because we
are focussing on different points. You are looking at it from sentence
construction, while I'm looking at it from the task of understanding how to
use specific verbs well. You can follow all the rules and put words in each
position in the sentence structure with all the right suffixes for the
sentence structure and still speak gibberish if you have put the wrong noun
assigned to the given grammatical functions.
Forgive me for overusing {ja'} and {jatlh}, but they are so fully explored
and confirmed by Okrand as to make perfect examples here. I can follow all
the rules you've just explained and say:
paqDaq SoQvaD Qanqor vIjatlh.
I can want this to mean that I read Krankor the speech in the book, but I'll
be wrong to do so. It is not enough to understand the rules. You have to
understand what kind of noun can be placed in the various non-subject roles
in the sentence. This is why I want to use the word "oblique" to include the
direct object. It is useful in the study of a verb to understand the
specific nouns that are valid choices for direct object, indirect object,
locative, etc.
QanqorvaD SoQ'e' ngaSbogh paq vIjatlh.
How would I say this with {ja'}? Well, I can't. I can say {Qanqor vIja'},
but I have no way to relate {SoQ} to the verb {ja'}. It is not the direct
object. It is not the indirect object. In truth, it has no relationship to
{ja'} at all. If I were just to look at it in terms of the mechanics of the
grammar, I could put all these words into a sentence, but they would not
mean anything because I will have disrespected the functional potentials and
limits of the specific verb {ja'}.
And so, I see this backwards to the way you see it, and I do so for a very
good reason. I want to speak the language well. Learning the rules is an
important first step, but we can't stop there. Understanding the verbs and
the specific nouns that relate to them and the specific grammatical function
that relates a given noun to a given verb is as fundamental to speaking
Klingon well as any rule.
> >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.
Okay. Explain to me what nouns can act as beneficiaries (particularly as
indirect objects) for {ja'}. I know I'm rather perplexed by the idea. I've
worked on it and unless I begin to refer to a person who commanded me to
speak, or a person I'm representing, I can't think of a good example of the
"right" noun to use with {-vaD} with {jatlh}. And again, looking from my
backwards perspective, in your slotless grammar, how to you relate the noun
{SoQ} to {ja'}? Do you just pull the wild card and throw it, suffix-free, at
the beginning of the sentence, using the rule Okrand doesn't use to put one
of those unexplained "other" nouns at the beginning of the sentence? Do we
use {-mo'}? How do we use {SoQ} with {ja'}? How do we use {Hol} with {ja'}?
> >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.
And you've missed why I want to include them. Depending on the verb, nouns
slip around among the functions of {-vaD}, direct object and some rare
times, even locative. Learning which of these grammatical functions have a
"slot" for a given noun tells you how to use that verb well. When I use the
word "slot", I'm not talking about a rules-based location in the sentence,
as you and SuStel seem to be pushing my use of the word to mean. I'm talking
about potential grammatical relationships between specific nouns and
specific verbs. Which function should a specific noun take with a specific
verb? It is not always as clean-cut as you sugggest, as the contrast between
{ja'} and {jatlh} so clearly demonstrates.
If you just study grammar in the abstract without looking at the grammatical
potentials of specific verbs and the nouns with which they combine, you can
never understand how to use {ja'} and {jatlh} and why they are used
differently. You can be easily mystified by their gloss definitions, trying
to have those definitions alone explain how and when to use one or the
other. Meanwhile, if you study the way that persons addressed are direct
objects of {ja'} and indirect objects of {jatlh} and things said are direct
objects of {jatlh} and have no relationship whatsoever to {ja'}, then you
can begin to use {ja'} and {jatlh} well and as you expand the number of
words you similarly understand as well, you expand your ability to speak the
language well.
Additionally, since this approach focusses on the meaning of the words and
their potential relationships instead of the abstract form of the grammar,
it will help in translation because you will be less likely to study the
grammatical form of the English and begin by immitating the grammatical form
of the Klingon and then just fill in the Klingon words into the
grammatically similar positions in the Klingon and then take this encoding
process and call it translation. By the other approach, you instead choose
the right words for the action you wish to express and then choose the nouns
which work with these verbs and place them in the grammatical form
appropriate for that verb, whether or not it matches the grammatical form of
the original English.
Tada! You will then have recast the meaning of an English sentence into
Klingon, rather than literally encoding it and expecting the resulting code
to have meaning in Klingon.
> 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.
What I'm trying to do is focus my attention on that tiny, shining point
where the energy of semantics flows into the structure of the syntax. It is
like static electricity gathered from the air into a wire. Something
powerful happens there. If you study floating static electricity alone, it
is formless. If you study the wiring alone, you never get a spark. It is the
union where language happens.
> >...
> >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.
The problem is that we don't have examples in canon that I have seen where
this is genuinely ambiguous, only to be determined by context, as SuStel
suggests. We have the {ghoS} words.
We have {X-vo' Y-Daq}, and we have some verbs that always seem to use {-Daq}
to indicate where the action happens and other specific verbs that always
seem to use {-Daq} to indicate where the action ends up.
Now, does that mean that those verbs have some magically undescribed reason
that they are functionally different because their locatives indicate the
"target" of the action instead of the place where the action "happens",
(which seems a little complex to me), or is it the simpler case that
Klingons perceive that these verbs "happen" at the target?
If that idea were true, it would be really hard to convey this in an
Okrandian gloss definition.
> >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.
I read the example from the top down and didn't word my earlier statement
well or go back and modify it later, since I was writing this at about 4am
when I knew that my alarm was supposed to go off at 6 before I went to work.
SuStel was insisting that I go back and spend the extra half-hour or more to
do it his way and that didn't put me in a very good mood. I was less careful
than I prefer to be and I'm content to have that error in the archive.
Meanwhile, I did address that example. I would, however, like to sleep a
LITTLE tonight, so I'll pass on the opportunity to address it again.
> >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.
There's an interesting perspective that joins SuStel's perspective and mine.
In essence, you are saying that the action HAPPENS where it ends up, which
is pretty much what I said, though I think you expressed it more elequently.
> Other
> context is necessary to determine where one was when one began the action.
But why should that matter? Given the Klingon fixation on targets, why not
assume that the locative is ALWAYS what we now want to call the target? If I
say {qachDaq jIjaH} or {qachDaq vIjaH}, then in either case, I wind up in
the building. With {jI-} it is implied that the entire trip occurred in the
building, but with {vI-} it is assumed that I started off somewhere else and
ended up there. Meanwhile, in either case, the locative is the target. We
don't have a locative for where you started. For that, we only have {-vo'}.
I think you just made my arguement a lot clearer.
So, from this perspective:
1. The locative {-Daq} is always the target.
2. In most cases, the target is also where you started, since most verbs
don't imply motion.
3. The starting point is noted as being different from the target when you
add a noun with {-vo'}.
4. The starting point is also noted as being different from the target when
you use a {ghoS}-like verb of motion and the locative is the direct object.
5. If the {ghoS}-like verb has a locative which is NOT the direct object,
then the starting point is assumed to be the same as the target in that the
scope of the locative is large enough to contain the entire motion.
None of this relates to SuStel's assumption that it is a common occurance
for there to be no evidence beyond context whether the locative refers to
the starting point or the target.
> 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?
That is not important, since the locative is always the target. That's how
you say it. I had said that the action "happens" at the target. That is
different wording for the same idea.
> 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.]
Couched in the newer style of expression, the locative applied to {jaH}
always refers to the destination of the action of {jaH}. If the locative is
not a direct object, then the entire action happens within the scope of the
target. If the locative is the direct object, then the initial location is
outside of the scope of the target/locative.
Now, there is no question whether or not we are talking about the target. We
are ALWAYS talking about the target. The question now is whether or not we
are noting that the original location is inside or outside the scope of the
locative (which is always the target).
Note that in all of this, "target" could be replaced by "ending location".
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
charghwI' 'utlh