tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 11 07:53:34 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deixis and direction
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:53:12 CDT
jatlh SuStel:
> > Condition: noun indicates something other than subject or object.
> > Result: noun goes into "header" noun position.
>
jang charghwI':
> Okrand plainly states that the grammatical functions of "subject" and
> "object" are indicated by position, while other grammatical functions are
please note the word "normally" in that statement, which, at least
technically, leaves open the possibility of exceptions, including
the kind Sustel is considering.
> indicated, unlike English, by suffixes and in particular, by Type 5
> suffixes. [...]
> 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.
>
I will say, that I believe the intention was to have subjects and
objects without type 5s other than {-'e'}; {-Daq} comes through as
an exception when it marks objects, and I believe it's worth noting
that in this capacity it is optional.
> > 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.
I'd like to make it more of a question than a challenge, by
providing an example. SuStel, would you say that *{qab QongDaq}
is possibly (NOT necessarily, I understand that) a grammatical
sentence with a meaning like "The bed's location is bad." ?
> > 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.
>
hmmm, it seems like you dimiss the possibility that this has
ANY meaning, including "The origin of the river is hot.",
which, I guess, answers my question above with "No"...
jatlh SuStel:
> > > > 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.
> >
I'm not sure in how far your so-called "in-ness" or "at-ness"
differs from the object's location as in my *{qab QongDaq} above.
> > Klingon works in an entirely different way than Klingon.
>
net Sovchu' :)
\begin{aside}
> 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}.
>
I think this is an example where it's worth distinguishing between
SUBJECT and OBJECT on the one hand and AGENT and PATIENT on the
other. verbs "in the reflexive voice", i.e. those carrying either
{-'egh} or {-chuq}, cannot have an OBJECT. They do have a SUBJECT
which is both AGENT and PATIENT of the action described.
this would make the case "nominative" (lucky us, Klingon
is not an ergative language...)
I hope I got that right...
\end{aside}
[about {Duj, baHwI' vIHoH}]
> I disagree. The noun {Duj} has no established grammatical link to the verb.
if something forced me to not interpret {Duj, baHwI'} as a noun-noun
construction, I'd be forced to interpret {Duj} as a vocative (see
TKD 5.6).
> > 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.
>
the difference is, there are no "prepositional phrases" in Klingon.
Klingon has DIp, wot, chuv and one can derive from that noun phrases
and verbal phrases, but no "prepositional phrases".
I agree with SuStel that noun suffixes do not change the grammatical
category of a noun. {QongDaq} is a DIp, what else?
however, I agree with charghwI', that at present it doesn't seem
very useful to think of type five noun suffixes as simply adding
something to the meaning of the noun. If you want to use them correctly
you have to know their function in the sentence, which is (usually)
neither subject nor object.
> > > > 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.
> >
there!
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]