tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 10 22:49:33 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 3:08 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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.
Okrand plainly states that the grammatical functions of "subject" and
"object" are indicated by position, while other grammatical functions are
indicated, unlike English, by suffixes and in particular, by Type 5
suffixes. If you don't see that, it is simply because you refuse to look.
You are a horse. Here is water. Choose for yourself. I am no longer
concerned if you do not drink. We've reached the point where we are
repeating ourselves. I will spare the rest of the list from hearing my
perspective on this unchanged topic, lacking any new insight.
I should hope that someone else might actually agree with me in pointing out
what Okrand is clearly saying in TKD, but I won't attach myself too dearly
to these hopes. It is ultimately not all that consequential.
> 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.
That's your term, not his, not that it makes too much difference. Also note
that Okrand has commented on {-'e'} to reassure us that we were right in our
analysis that he is using it for more than just what he claims in TKD, and
his pronunciation guides are only inaccurate in a couple very small details
(like whether "r" is lightly trilled or not). The description of {-ghach} is
not inaccurate. It is simply not very complete. I don't think he had
finished that idea by the time TKD was published.
None of this matches the order of magnitude of suggesting that Okrand
doesn't know what syntax is or that he would choose to use the term
"syntactic marker" for laymen because he thought they would understand it
better than if he had told them "it alters the meaning of the noun", which
is what you are claiming that he really meant. Sometimes I really wonder if
you believe yourself or if you just say outlandish things in order to work
up an argument.
> 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.
Except for {-'e'}, I challenge you to place ANY noun with a Type 5 suffix in
the subject position. While you are at it, I challenge you to place any noun
with a Type 5 suffix other than {-'e'} and on {ghoS}-like verbs of motion,
{-Daq}, in the object position. Go ahead. I DARE you.
> 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.
This argument is SOOOO lame. Please shoot it to end its suffering.
> 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.
I honestly believe that you have this backwards. Some nouns can have a
function other than subject or object and not have a Type 5 suffix. This is
true for time stamps in particular, and not much else. Meanwhile, except for
{-'e'} and except for {-Daq} on specific verbs, every instance of a noun
with a Type 5 suffix always has a function other than subject or object. It
is what is listed in TKD in the description of the grammar and Okrand has
been consistent about this in all of his canon examples for over a decade.
In the one extended conversation I had with him, he stressed that the
details of the language should be extracted from examining usage. So, where
is your canon usage of a noun with a Type 5 suffix that acts as subject of a
valid Klingon sentence? Show me this usage. You know it isn't there. You
have been around long enough and you are skilled enough with the language to
have noticed it.
You can argue that it is just a matter of coincidental semantics that no
such noun happens to have been used because it wouldn't make sense. IT
WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SIMULTANEOUSLY ASSIGNED TWO
DIFFERENT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS AT THE SAME TIME. That's
not semantic. That's syntax. As in "syntactical marker".
> TKD says, "If it's a fish, it lives underwater."
> You've concluded, "If it lives underwater, it's a fish."
Clever, but not applicable here.
> 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.
Quite true and accurate. Shall we talk about the English rules for
pronouncing "ough"? Tell me what rule explains:
tough
though
through
thought
trough
The rules of language have exceptions. Deal with it.
Meanwhile, there has never been an exception where, other than {-'e'}, a
Type 5 suffixed noun appears as subject of a sentence. And except for {-'e'}
and the special case of {ghoS} and the like and {-Daq}, there has never been
a case of a direct object having a Type 5 suffix on it.
You make exceptions where you find them. You don't just pretend like other
exceptions probably exist when there are none to be found.
> As I said, acrobatics. My approach fully explains /-'e'/, and eliminates
> the entire mess.
Of course, it introduces the whole mess of trying to explain why these other
suffixes never are used on the subject.
> 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.
Not especially.
> 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.
Okrand has stated that {-'e'} does indeed function as "focus" or "emphatic"
in addition to his original classification of it to mean "topic". The
original "topic" function still makes it what you would call a "header
noun", but the functions of "focus" or "emphasis" do not conflict with the
grammatical function of being a subject or object, so nouns can both have
{-'e'} and function as subject or object. None of the other grammatical
functions described by Type 5 suffixes can coexist with the function of
being the subject or object of a verb.
The other exception is that {-Daq} can optionally exist on direct objects of
certain verbs of motion, since these direct objects are indeed locations.
There is no conflict between the grammatical function of being a locative
and being direct object of these specific verbs. "Normal" verbs cannot do
this. This has to do with the way that prepositional concepts are implied by
certain verbs, in English as well as Klingon. When you orbit a planet, the
planet is the direct object of "orbit", but when you go around a planet,
"around a planet" is a prepositional phrase. That's not a direct object at
all. Meanwhile, "orbit" and "go" are both verbs about motion. The concept of
"orbit" includes a prepositional relationship with the direct object, so we
don't mark it with the preposition. The concept of "go" is more generic and
does not imply this prepositional relationship with the direct object.
It's late. I hope I'm not losing focus too much.
> 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.
Hmmm. Maybe it's late while YOU are writing this as well. Gee. I wonder what
we would be saying to each other if we were both alert. There is an aspect
of this that resembles two drunks in a bar. Things seem so terribly profound
after a few beers. Sleep deprivation has a similar effect.
> This is why I eventually
> abandoned the
> "case" analysis of Klingon: it just doesn't work the same way.
I do believe that "case" is a valid, though not altogether consistently
accurate model for Klingon grammar. Klingon has this mix of grammatical
markers. Subject and object are positional, which makes them exclusive
except in the case of the reflexive voice. A noun can only be both subject
and object in the reflexive voice, using {-'egh} or {-chuq}.
The grammatical functions indicated by Type 5 suffixes are similarly
exclusive, since you cannot have more than one Type 5 suffix on a noun.
There are a couple of exceptions to the Type 5 suffixed noun being excluded
from the roles of subject and object, just as the reflexive voice is an
exception to the general rule that a noun can't be subject and object
simultaneously. Grammatical roles are typically exclusively assigned to
nouns in that one noun usually does not carry multiple, simultaneous,
grammatical roles in a sentence.
So, by a case analysis, is the subject/object of a reflexive verb the
nominative or accusative case? Well, it's both. But cases are not supposed
to work like that. Most of the time, the case model works for Klingon, but
not always.
> 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.
"semantic grammar"? Are you listening to yourself?
> /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.)
I disagree. The noun {Duj} has no established grammatical link to the verb.
You want to just call it a head noun, but since it is clearly not a time
stamp and it has no Type 5 suffix, it is just a word plopped among other
words with no grammatical role in the sentence. When you have a word with no
grammatical role in a sentence, that is a lot like having an ungrammatical
sentence. In fact, it is EXACTLY like having an ungrammatical sentence.
It can only appear to be a grammatical sentence if you stubbornly refuse to
acknowledge that nouns generally cannot be "head nouns" without having an
appropriate grammmatical function to have it placed there. That function is
generally indicated by a Type 5 suffix, unless the noun is a time stamp or
unless it is an exceptional word, like the few that imply locative concepts
even without {-Daq}, like {naDev} or {pa'}. In this case, {Duj} is not an
exceptional noun that implies a time stamp or any other Type 5 concept. It
does not belong here.
> > > 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.
The one time when it does make a difference is worthy of some exploration. I
point this out even though I dread that you will likely take it and run in
some new, strange direction. Check out TKD page 180 (ignoring the typo that
adds an unfortunate space to the example). The direct object gets located as
a "head noun" (your term), even as it still functions as direct object. I
can see why Okrand did it. It offers a way to disambiguate certain
expressions. But the form of this is strange.
> > 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!
I really don't see how we gain anything by claiming that the grammatical
function is part of the meaning of the noun, and so this is a semantic issue
and not a syntactical one. That's how we get into the mess of "semantic
grammar". Next, you'll be writing about some brilliant new theory on
"syntactic meaning".
> > 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.
If they aren't, then what are they? They form the context from which she is
chosen as seven. You cannot be seven of nine if the topic is not the nine
from which you are seven. Here "from" is not a locative concept. She would
still be seven of nine, even if she were part of a group hug with the other
eight members. There is a context, a topic and that is nine, and given that
context, she is seven. Her designation of seven is meaningless without the
topic of the nine.
> 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.
Yes. I accept this.
Meanwhile, I don't think we get anywhere by tearing off on a tangent and
then making a self-righteous claim to being more Klingon than thou as we
outrageously distort the meaning of terms Okrand has spoken with clarity.
> 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.
My longest relationship was with a woman who once talked about food that
was, "burnt to the gills." I smiled and replied, "Stuffed to a crisp." To
this day, I still find this charming.
> 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.
True, but I think the model would work better and we'd all agree on it more
than this "semantic grammar" that you are stuck on.
> 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.)
You are simply taking grammar and absorbing it into an expanded sense of
semantics. The equivalent in English would be to claim that a prepositional
phrase is actually just a noun with a specialized meaning that makes it only
suitable to be used where one would use a prepositional phrase.
Syntactical markers are syntactical markers. They are not merely meaning
modifiers resulting in the use of these semantically modified nouns only in
the specialized places that certain grammatical rules dictate words of that
meaning can go.
Don't you see the recursive thought patterns you have gotten into?
> 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.
I respect everything you are now saying. I honestly believe that your
specific theory is misguided, but I will definitely defend your right to
passion and the enjoyment you get from seeing the language through a new
prism.
> 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.
I suspect that this is the single most insightful statement that either one
of us have made in this entire thread.
> > > 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.
I sincerely apologize for misinterpreting your enthusiasm.
> > > 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.
I feel appropriately humbled for making an inaccurate accusation.
> > 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.
And I respect your passion and your intellect, even as I am baffled by your
blurring of the relatively clear boundary between syntax and semantics;
between grammar and meaning.
It's like saying that, well, yes, it quacks like a duck and walks like a
duck, but it is really a very special kind of flying, swimming cow that can
only be used in settings appropriate for a duck. Syntactic markers appear to
mark syntax, but instead, they really modify semantics so that this
semantically altered word can only be used in places where a word with the
syntax it appears to be representing can be used, but only because the
semantics dictate this exclusive use of the word.
> SuStel
> Stardate 522.4
charghwI'