tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 09 18:43:58 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
[DaHjaj vaS'a'Daq ta'vaD betleH Del HoD.
becomes
DaHjaj vaS'a'Daq ta'mo' betleH Del HoD.]
ja'pu' SuStel:
>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.
ja' charghwI':
>I'd be curious about how many others agree.
I'm with SuStel here. The grammar is the same; only the meaning of the
noun differs between the two examples. I almost completely agree with the
interpretation that noun suffixes are part of the noun, not part of the
sentence. [Type 5 suffixes aren't *quite* that simple, since they do
migrate to adjectival verbs; one might say they are part of a "noun
phrase".] In my present model of Klingon grammar, there's nothing like a
"beneficiary slot" associated with a verb into which one puts a noun and
marks it with {-vaD}. Instead, there's just a general "other" category,
and a noun with {-vaD} fits that category as well as a noun with {-mo'}.
SuStel:
>You've turned your understanding of Klingon into a magnificent jigsaw
>puzzle.
charghwI':
>Indeed, it is. It is a puzzle I very much enjoy.
Presenting the Klingon language as a complicated puzzling structure might
make for animated discussion among people who enjoy delving deep into such
things, but it probably turns away many who might otherwise learn the
language, being perfectly satisfied with a much simpler view of things.
SuStel:
>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.
charghwI':
>It will realize the grammatical potential of that verb to support that noun
>to serve that grammatical function in the sentence.
Your use of the term "grammatical potential" is at odds with my
understanding of why and how certain nouns are supported in various roles
by specific verbs. The "potential" is one of meaning, not one of grammar.
Nouns don't "serve" grammatical functions; they serve semantic ones, and
the grammar is subordinate to the intended meaning. I'm sorry to keep
making this distinction even in the face of your justifiable and
well-argued dismissal of it, but I still firmly believe that by failing to
accept the distinction you're making your model of Klingon grammar much
more complicated than necessary.
SuStel:
>Man, it's all so simple! And yet, I don't think I can explain it to you so
>that you'll understand it.
charghwI':
>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 sounds to me more like he's recognizing your refusal to accept the
possibility that such a simple interpretation can be valuable.
SuStel:
>It's just so simple, yet so powerful, that it's
>wonderfully elegant. Don't you see it?
charghwI':
>You apparently assume that I can't.
As long as you continue to view things through your filter of "specific
verbs have specific grammar", *I* am convinced that you won't grasp the
elegant simplicity of SuStel's interpretation. You'll keep seeing it as
*too* simple to be worthy of consideration, since you apparently deny the
validity of "mere meaning" as being sufficient to explain choosing one
suffix over another.
SuStel:
>A locative is not a special grammatical feature of Klingon syntax.
I would like to agree completely, but I can't do so without contradicting
what TKD has to say about it. I prefer to consider that locatives are a
strictly semantic feature, but they are (inconveniently) labeled as
"Syntactic markers" by TKD, and they are explicitly explained as indicating
the function of nouns in a sentence.
charghwI':
>A suffix is a syntactical feature. It indicates a grammatical function.
Syntax considers the rules by which words and other structures are combined
to form sentences. Grammar is a much more comprehensive term, including
syntax, inflections, and word formation rules. Type 5 noun suffixes just
barely manage to fit the category of syntax, but only because they appear
under the heading of "Syntactic markers" in TKD. Without that label, they
might as well be just another class of noun suffixes, merely affecting the
meaning of the noun instead of placing them in predefined roles in the
sentence. The label carries lots of importance, but the actual usage of
the suffixes does permit a simpler interpretation which does not involve
syntax.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh