tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 16 20:02:43 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 1:48 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
>
>
> jIjatlh:
> > << In my less-sophisticated version of analysis, there is nothing which
> > explicitly prohibits such a construction. Nothing known, that
> is. There
> is
> > simply no rule in TKD which says that a noun with a Type 5
> suffix cannot
> be
> > a subject. >>
>
> jatlh peHruS:
> > The following is a quote from TKD 6.1 Basic sentences:
> >
> > Any noun in the sentence indicating something other than
> subject or object
> > comes first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a Type 5
> noun
> > suffix (section 3.3.5.)
>
> Clearly, you haven't been following this discussion.
>
> This says that if it's NOT a subject or object, it goes in front.
>
> This says nothing whatsoever about what happens if it IS a subject or
> object.
What this section of TKD says that you refuse to recognize is that the
grammatical functions of subject and object are indicated by position, while
other grammatical functions that link nouns to the main verb are indicated
by Type 5 suffixes. It then lists the Type 5 suffixes and explains what
grammatical function each specifies for the noun to which it is attached.
Except for {-'e'}, which many people have argued for years is radically
different from any other Type 5 suffix, none of the other grammatical
functions are compatible with the role of subject or object, with the
exception of the unusual relationship between certain verbs of motion and
their direct objects, which are locatives. For all other verbs, a locative
cannot serve as a direct object.
> It says that those nouns which go in front usually end in Type 5 suffixes.
>
> It says nothing about nouns ending with Type 5 suffixes having to go in
> front.
That is such an obvious conclusion that he didn't even bother to state it.
If I say, "Fish swim in water," I don't say that they don't walk on dry
land. As it happens, there are a couple of odd fish that in special
circumstances squirm their way across dry patches of land, seeking other
bodies of water, so if I were to state that "Fish never walk on land" I
would not be altogether accurate, (just as Okrand would not be accurate to
say that Type 5 suffixed nouns never appear as subject or object, given the
unusual exceptions of {-'e'} which can easily and commonly serve in either
function, or {-Daq} as direct object of specific verbs of motion). It is
clear enough to most people that unless we are given specific exceptions to
the general trend, Type 5 suffixed nouns must appear as what you call "head
nouns". They are not subjects or objects.
> There is no known rule prohibiting placing Type 5'd nouns in the subject
> position. There is also no known rule prohibiting placing Type
> 5'd nouns in
> the object position.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that all Type 5'd nouns DO appear in the subject
> position. I'm saying that Klingon grammarians have no rule that has been
> revealed to us that prohibits such placement.
Then again, Okrand did say that we should pay a lot of attention to usage,
and thusfar, there is no usage supporting your proposal.
> And Type 5'd nouns DO appear in the object position for some verbs: the
> verbs of motion.
This is a well-acknowledged exception noted in TKD and expounded upon in the
HolQeD interview.
> And there are some Type 5'd nouns that appear in subject and object
> positions: nouns ending with /-'e'/. They are not an exception
> to the rule.
Yes, they are. Because of Okrand's use of {-'e'} to mark "focus", as he
confessed in his interview with ~mark in HolQeD, he is using it to mark a
grammatical function that does not conflict at all with the function of
being a subject or object of the main verb. By convention, it is ALWAYS used
to mark the subject of a "to be" sentence, and it is used more commonly on
subjects and objects marking "focus" than on its stated independent
grammatical function of "topicalizer". Indeed, it CAN'T go before the direct
object if it is used to mark "focus" because that is not a sufficient
grammatical link to the word to make it have a reason to be in the sentence
at all. In that position, it must mark "topic". When used as "topic", it
can't appear as subject or object. That's actually how you can tell which
grammatical function is it serving.
There is a rather bothersome example of his adverbial placement if the
direct object is marked with {-'e'} explained in the Addendum. This has an
interesting positive effect on disambiguating which verb an adverb is
applied to when a direct object of the main verb is the head noun of a
relative clause, which is why, I suspect, Okrand came up with this
construction in the first place, but it is an example of {-'e'} marking a
noun that appears to be placed as a "head" noun while it is actually
functioning as direct object. Then, it seems to be neither the focus nor the
topic. It is just marked in order to move the adverb, so far as I can tell.
I think this is just another example of Okrand inviting inconsistency with
the justification that natural languages are very inconsistent. He doesn't
want Klingon to be too neat.
> They are simply the Type 5 ending which most commonly may be
> placed in these
> unusual places. Otherwise, they'd be an exception: "You can't
> put Type 5'd
> nouns in the subject or object position, unless that Type 5 ending is
> /-'e'/, 'cause /-'e'/ somehow works differently." I disagree with this
> statement.
I disagree with your disagreement. We are at an empass. I wish we could come
to agreement, but I see this has become a religious issue and there's no
real sense in arguing about it.
> Once more: I'm not arguing that constructions like /qab bIQtIqvo'/ make
> sense in Klingon. I'm saying they're not grammatically prohibited.
And I'm saying that they ARE grammatically prohibited because {-vo'} is a
syntactic marker indicating a noun with a grammatical function that is
fundamentally incompatible with the grammatical function of subject.
> SuStel
> Stardate 531.8
charghwI'
Stardate 542.3