tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 09 12:09:29 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deixis and direction
jIjatlh:
> > One of the interesting aspects of this line of reasoning, by the way, is
> > that it follows that there's no reason why ANY noun can't be the object
of
> > /ja'/, however meaningless that object might be. There's
> > certainly no rule
> > that says that Type 5'd nouns can't be the object of any verb.
>
> TKD page 26, Section 3.3.5, Type 5: Syntactic markers
>
> "These suffixes indicate something about the function [not meaning] of the
> noun in the sentences. As in English, subjects and objects are normally
> indicated by the position of the noun or nouns in the sentences... in
> Klingon, nouns which indicate somethign other than subject or object
usually
> must have some special indication of exactly what that function is. Unlike
> English, this is accomplished by using suffixes."
>
> Page 60, Section 6.1: Basic sentences
>
> "Any noun in the sentences indicating something other than subject or
object
> comes first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a Type 5
> snoun suffix."
>
> This seems to indicate fairly clearly that Type 5 suffixed nouns do not
> function as direct objects or subjects (with the obvious exception of
{-'e'}
> in a couple cases).
It does not indicate this. It says if you have something other than subject
or object, it will become a "header" noun, and "header" nouns are usually
Type 5 suffixed. I agree completely. They are not exclusively Type 5
suffixed, as shown in examples like /DaHjaj jISop/, where /DaHjaj/ is a
"header" noun without a Type 5 suffix. However, the passage quoted says
nothing whatsoever about Type 5'd nouns not being subject or object! There
is no such rule. Your conclusion is the converse of what TKD says, if I
remember my logic terminology correctly.
Condition: noun indicates something other than subject or object.
Result: noun goes into "header" noun position.
As for Okrand using the words "function" and "syntactic" in the dictionary,
I don't consider these to necessarily mean something as specific as you
claim. It's happened elsewhere that Okrand says one thing in the dictionary
and then something else happens, and this is usually because he's
simplifying the text in TKD. Some of the descriptions of pronunciation, the
information about /-'e'/, and the description of /-ghach/ come to mind, and
I'm sure there's more. He wrote the dictionary for laymen, not for
linguists. And notice that the reference to "syntactic markers" comes in
the section on nouns, not on the section on syntax. The only thing section
6 has to say about Type 5'd nouns is that they're USUALLY the sort of noun
that gets put into the "header" position.
Again, I'm not saying that it MUST be true that you can put all Type 5'd
nouns into the subject position, for example. I'm saying that the rules
don't prohibit it, and that it would explain a thing or two. It may not be
illegal to put /bIQtIqvo'/ in the subject position for the verb /tuj/, for
example, but the resulting sentence /tuj bIQtIqvo'/ is semantically
meaningless, at least to Klingons, and thus it does not appear in the canon.
jIjatlh:
> > Heck, there's no rule which says that one of these nouns can't
> > appear in the
> > subject position! Now, see below for the really cool part.
jatlh charghwI':
> I'm looking, but again, you've already stepped out of bounds from Okrand's
> descriptions in TKD. He says that Type 5 suffixes give the nouns a
function
> different from subject or object.
Again, he says that nouns that aren't subject or object usually have a Type
5 suffix. This is a far different thing. He never once says that if it's
got a Type 5 suffix, it can't be a subject or object.
TKD says, "If it's a fish, it lives underwater."
You've concluded, "If it lives underwater, it's a fish."
jatlh charghwI':
> The verbs of motion are simply exceptions to an otherwise remarkably
> consistent rule that verbs can't take Type 5 suffixed nouns as either
> subject or object.
Consistent except that you don't apply it to /-'e'/, which is a Type 5
suffix. Unless that /-'e'/ appears on a noun in the pre-object area. In
which case it means something else.
As I said, acrobatics. My approach fully explains /-'e'/, and eliminates
the entire mess. I'm not saying that the elimination of exceptions is a
necessary goal in Klingon, but in this case it's just one benefit of a
powerful reinterpretation. Finally, TKD's description of /-'e'/ really does
make sense, Okrand's later explanation and all.
jIjatlh:
> > But
> > suppose, just suppose, that our friends the Type 5'd nouns all
> > work exactly
> > the same way: as a noun, and a noun is a noun is a noun.
> >
> > First, we see that there's no reason to call /-'e'/ different than the
> > others: since we're supposing that all Type 5'd nouns have the
> > potential of
> > appearing as the subject or object of a verb, we no longer consider
/-'e'/
> > to be an exception to the rules. It works exactly the same way.
jatlh charghwI':
> It works the same way, if you consider Okrand to be ignorant of the
> grammatical function of words in a language he created. I personally doubt
> that.
I don't understand this statement.
jIjatlh:
> > It's just
> > that its meaning, that of emphasis or topic, doesn't add a meaning which
> > changes its suitability to be a subject or object. /-Daq/, for
instance,
> > add "in-ness" or "at-ness" to a noun, and doing something to a thing's
> > "in-ness" or "at-ness" is different than doing something to the thing
> > itself. However, emphasis doesn't add something to the noun which
> > interferes with its meaning in the sentence. Thus, /-'e'/s as
> > subjects and
> > objects are common.
jatlh charghwI':
> So, I suppose that in English, you consider a prepositional phrase to be a
> noun. It is just a noun with a modified meaning. The phrase, "due to the
> weather" is also grammatically a noun, by your analysis.
I'm not talking about English! I'm talking about Klingon! This sort of
analysis has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the way English
works. That's the basis of everything I'm saying. I'm talking about what
Klingon grammarians say about the Klingon language. Klingon works in an
entirely different way than Klingon. This is why I eventually abandoned the
"case" analysis of Klingon: it just doesn't work the same way.
jIjatlh:
> > You wouldn't say /Duj baHwI' vIHoH/, "The ship, I killed the
> > gunner" (although this time, "I killed the ship's gunner" means
basically
> > the same thing, but that's not relevant here), because you have
> > not given an
> > indication of what the ship has to do with the sentence.
jatlh charghwI':
> Right. You have not revealed its grammatical function. Which is exactly my
> point.
And therein lies our difference of opinion. In Klingon, I say this isn't
syntactic grammar, this is semantic grammar. /Duj baHwI' vIHoH/ is a
syntactically valid sentence, even if you accept that /Duj/ and /baHwI'/ are
not part of a noun-noun construction. It's not semantically valid; it
doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It means something like "I killed
the gunner; ship." (The validity of the syntax of the English translation
I've just provided is irrelevant. I am illustrating the approximate meaning
of the Klingon sentence, not its syntax.)
> > Now, as far as topics go, I haven't given them much thought until
> > recently,
> > and I'm willing to admit that my example sentence may not be the best
one.
> > I think, however, that this is why we don't often see topics as "header
> > nouns": it's hard to think of a topic which isn't also a subject
> > or object.
>
> I don't quite believe that. Most of the time, when {-'e'} is on the
subject
> or object, it marks the focus/emphatic meaning and not the topic. If a
word
> that already has another grammatical function than topic is also the
topic,
> it usually doesn't need to be pointed out. The topicalizer is mostly
needed
> for cases where there is a topic that is not otherwise mentioned in the
> sentence.
I don't disagree with what you're saying (except for the "grammatical
function" part), but it's also not really addressing what I said. I simply
said that we don't see topics hanging in front of sentences a lot because
there aren't a lot of times when the topic doesn't also happen to be the
subject or object. Whether /-'e'/ on subject or object is interpreted to be
topic or emphasis, or both, doesn't change the meaning of what I said.
> A good canon example was ghunchu'wI's quoting ST5 saying, "You are
> the best gunner." The grammar allows you to say, "You are the best", but
> there is no way to say, "You are the best gunner". There is no hole in the
> grammar into which "gunner" can be inserted except as topic. "As for
> gunners, you are the best."
I agree with this in one respect. "There is no hole in the grammar into
which 'gunner' [actually, the correct word is 'warrior'] can be inserted."
I agree with this. With this concept, and with the way a /law'-puS/
sentence works, "warrior" is not the subject. It is not the object.
Therefore, according to TKD 6.1, it must go into the "header" noun position.
It does not go into some pre-ordained "topic" slot. It IS the topic of the
sentence as conceived. Therefore, the appropriate noun is /SuvwI''e'/. Put
it in the right place, that is, in the "header" noun position, and voila!
> Perhaps the best translation for "I am seven of nine" is"
>
> Hut'e' Soch jIH.
I don't think so. At least, not unless "nine" really is the topic of the
sentence. You'd have to be talking about nine, and in relation to nine,
you'd be saying you're seven. These days, when Seven of Nine introduces
herself, it is not really in relation to the other eight Borg in her group.
They are not the topic.
jIjatlh:
> > You
> > say it's a
> > puzzle you like, and I understand that, but I don't think it's the way
> > Klingons would like it.
jatlh charghwI':
> "What would Kruge do?" [new montra for Klingon cult]
Let's not forget that you frequently justify criticism of others' sentences
and analyses on the basis of what seems Klingon to you. We both understand
that the language is guided at least in part by a certain mindset.
jIjatlh:
> > And this is also a good reason why Okrand always talks about what
"works"
> > instead of what's "right" and "wrong." Sure, he doesn't want to paint
> > himself into a wall,
>
> That's an interesting variation on the cliche of painting oneself into a
> corner. The imagery is quite interesting.
As much as I'd like to claim originality for such an utterance, the truth is
I got my metaphors mixed up.
jIjatlh:
> > As I've indicated in posts, this is one reason why I started to think
the
> > traditional idea of case doesn't really makes much sense in
> > Klingon at all.
> > If these two were considered the same case, there wouldn't be
> > much point to
> > the distinction. If you talked about one, you might just as well
> > be talking
> > about the other. Now, I'm not saying that there IS no distinction at
all,
> > I'm just saying I don't know if the distinction would make a difference.
>
> You don't see the distinction between the nominative (subject) and
> accusative (object)?
I do in English. I do in Latin. I do in most related languages. I don't
think there's any significance to the distinction in Klingon. This is why I
don't think case is an entirely appropriate concept for Klingon. It just
doesn't work that way. At least, you'd have to come up with an entirely new
system, but as our own discussion shows, there would be dissent as to how to
formulate the new system.
Based on my analysis, you could potentially put any noun into any noun
place. (The meaning of the noun will restrict where it actually appears.)
Klingon does not inflect its nouns according to my viewpoint. At least, not
in a syntactic sense. Notice how these are half-truths and exceptions.
This is why I'm not sure that case is particularly helpful for analysis, and
one of the reasons why I dropped the label "oblique" noun. So with all of
this, where's the benefit of calling the subject "nominative" and the object
"accusative," except to give them other names? I didn't say there isn't or
can't be a distinction. I said the distinction doesn't seem to make a
difference in Klingon.
jIjatlh:
> > I chose a level of abstraction which served to illustrate my point. If
I
> > had chosen some other level, my point would have been difficult to see
> > (though still there).
>
> I would not have had a problem with that. My problem was with your
> declarative style by which you disrespected any other analysis of Klingon
> grammar.
I've indicated many times, including during the initial posts, that my ideas
on this topic are not meant as law. After that, I go and explain my ideas.
I don't write "I think this is true" for every sentence I write. And yet,
if you go back, you will see an amazing amount of statement qualification
from me.
I think you saw me get excited and passionate about that, and misunderstood
it as assumed authority. I don't want to make you or anyone else think I'm
trying to be controlling, but I can only put so much qualification into it
before it becomes bogged down entirely.
I am convinced that I am right. I still respect other viewpoints. I have
gone out of my way to indicate that respect. I HAVE become frustrated with
situations where things I never said are put into my mouth, and I will
continue to do so when it happens, but what you have interpreted as a
declarative style is simply me arguing my case with passion.
And I don't mean this to be insulting or disrepectful in any way, but I
believe that anything I say that you disagree with will be view as said with
declarative style. You tend to view any disagreement as a challenge to your
own opinions. I'm disagreeing, not challenging. I have a tendency to do
the same thing, which is why when you and I disagree about something, we
argue about it.
> > Why can't I declare a new valid structural analysis? Why isn't that
cool?
>
> Mostly, the uncool part was your declaring that all other analysis was
> WRONG.
Speaking of challenging, I challenge you to find a post where I declared
every other analysis WRONG. I've made it abundantly clear that I am not
declaring this. There was one post, I believe, where I said something like
"now I see it as it really is." However, one should take into account the
semi-mystical "I've just had an epiphany" mode I was writing in, and the
qualifications I added to the message in question. It was an expression of
certainty, not of declarative authority.
> > Why must I conform to the way YOU decide things? Make no mistake:
you're
> > the only one arguing with me about this.
>
> Likely, this is mostly the case that people don't like our insulting,
> agressive style and they don't want to READ what we write, let alone REPLY
> to it.
Sure, but the point is they have read at least SOME of it, and are content
to let me have my opinions. And I am content to let them have theirs.
> Meanwhile, I know that ghunchu'wI' doesn't like my alternative analysis
> (which I never claimed was exclusively valid, unlike your description of
> your system which definitely included the all caps word "WRONG" in a few
> places, referring to all the other systems that were suddenly obsolete
when
> you had your revellation).
Well, I've already gone through the entiretly of my posts with the subjects
"Deixis and direction" and "Thinking the sentence structure," and haven't
found any instance of the word "wrong" which referred to an alternate
analysis of the grammar. I haven't found any instance of my using the word
wrong in those messages in all capitals at all. The only time I accused
someone of being "wrong" was when I said you were 100% wrong (in lower-case)
about the term "oblique," and I have since withdrawn that objection on the
ground that (a) linguists themselves have alternate definitions of the word,
and (b) I don't think case is actually terribly useful for Klingon in
general, and would rather we used something else. If you're looking for an
apology, then I apologize for using "100%," which was used to indicate what
Klingons would use /-bej/ for. (I actually stopped and tried to think of as
neutral a phrase as I could for this; 100% was the least antagonistic one I
could come up with.)
I haven't checked every message over the last two months, but if you can
point out a specific instance of my accusing another analysis as being
"WRONG," I'll humbly apologize. I don't think you'll find it.
> So, ghunchu'wI': Do you really believe that Type 5 suffixes affect only
the
> semantics of a noun and not its grammatical function in a sentence? Do you
> agree with SuStel that when Okrand referred to Type 5 suffixes as
> "Syntactical markers" he was wrong?
>
> pagh? ~mark? Krankor? Anybody? Am I really the only person who doesn't
find
> this just a little bit unlikely to be a useful approach to the language?
Whether or not they agree with me is beside the point. Whether they are
going to block me from having this opinion is.
> Likely, you are not even aware of how strongly you put down all ideas
except
> your current interest. You used to see things more conventionally, but you
> outgrew all that and now you see how wrong we've all been all these years.
>
> [sigh]
>
> If you don't want me to argue with you, present your ideas as reasonably
as
> you just did. Say, "This is another way at looking at things that might
> offer some insight." You don't have to put down other approaches in order
to
> get positive attention. In fact, you lower your likelihood of success when
> you do so.
When I started going into this topic in depth, before you objected to it, at
the beginning of "Thinking the Sentence Structure," I started with the
phrase, "Just for your consideration." I said that "I THINK we list members
have broken down Klingon into more grammatical pieces than it really should
be" (emphasis added). I ended the message with "No need to vocally disagree
with me; if you don't like it, just ignore it. I'm not pushing it on
anyone" (the point being I just wanted to throw this out there and see if
anyone liked it; trying to avoid the very argument I ended up in). In the
middle of the message, I proceded to demonstrated what I was talking about,
and my disagreement with the conventional way of looking at it. I thought
this was diplomatic indeed. I have added similar qualifications to nearly
every subsequent post on this topic. With all due respect, I think you feel
threatened by this idea, or any idea that disagrees with what you believe.
So, once more: everyone is free to agree or disagree with me as far as I'm
concerned. I believe I am right, and will continue to espouse this
viewpoint, because to do otherwise would be to espouse a viewpoint I think
is incorrect. However, I will still respect this alternate viewpoint.
SuStel
Stardate 522.4