tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 16 21:13:52 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 5:19 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
>
>
> jatlh charghwI':
> > > puq QupvaD betleH nob HoD.
> > > puq Qupmo' betleH nob HoD.
> > >
> > > We don't have one sentence with a syntactically significant
> > > indirect object
> > > and one with a syntactically significant reason. We have two
> > > sentences with
> > > "header" noun phrases.
> >
> > I do find this interesting. I can definitely see this as one valid
> > interpretation among other valid interpretations.
>
> That's odd, since you have been vehemently rejecting the possibility of
> interpreting it this way up to now. Ah, you're setting yourself up as The
> Reasonable Guy, now that you have a new argument! Okay, let's
> get to that.
Please trust that I didn't intentionally make that as a leading statement.
What I wrote evolved while I wrote it. I was genuinely trying on this idea
of head nouns not being differentiated by Type 5 suffixes.
> > Meanwhile, I do see some
> > potential examples that might call this into question.
> >
> > puq QupvaD lurDech ngo'mo' betleH nob HoD.
> >
> > puq tInvaD puq machvaD je lurDech ngo'mo' betleH nob HoD.
> >
> > So, why am I driven to use {je} in the second example, but not
> the first?
>
> Now THIS is a good objection! You've included /chuvmey/ into the mix, and
> want to know if this changes the grammar at all.
No. That's not what I was doing. I was pointing out that conjunctions join
nouns which share a grammatical function in a sentence, but there is no need
of conjunctions to link nouns which have different grammatical functions.
You say the same thing below, but again, you refuse to see that the link is
grammatical function and instead make another vague reference to the nouns
sharing some meaning-based relationship.
> Well, let's start by evening out the example. I don't claim that /<noun
> phrase> <noun phrase> je/ is necessarily identical in grammar to /<noun
> phrase>/. Clearly, you've got something else in the mix. I don't claim
> that all noun phrases, no matter how many, get lumped into a single
> grammatical slot called "header noun." I claim that each noun
> phrase which
> doesn't indicate subject or object is of the grammatical distinction we've
> been calling "header noun."
Meanwhile, I see "header noun" as a positionally defined term for nouns
which appear before the direct object, regardless of their grammatical
function. It's sort of like classifying all people at a baseball game either
"fans" or "players". Since they are on the playing field, umpires and
coaches and managers are all called "players", whether they are actually
playing the game or not. They are on the field of play, therefore, they are
players. I point out that umpires have a different role in the game than
other players and you insist that they are just players. I ask which team
they are on and you get mad and insist that they are on the playing field,
so they are players, then you put your fingers in your ears and start
yelling, "Lalalalalalalalalalalalala..."
> Thus,
>
> naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?
> Can we get to the Great Hall from here?
>
> has a subject /maH/ (elided), a verb, /majaHlaH'a'/, a header noun
> /naDevvo'/, and a header noun /vaS'a'Daq/. (This ignores the recent
> revelation about verbs of motion. If you don't like it, substitute /yIt/
> for /jaH/.
>
> Now, suppose we have the following sentence, taken from your example but
> simplified to get rid of some of the nonessential parts:
>
> puqvaD lurDechmo' betleH nob HoD.
> The captain gives the child the bat'leth because of tradition.
>
> All very well and good. Except for the addition of an object noun phrase,
> I'd say this is the same grammar as the Great Hall example, and
> you'd say it
> isn't.
More than that, I'd say that the boundary between the different Type 5
suffixed nouns is exactly as meaningful as the boundary between the header
nouns and the direct object. There is nothing more grammatically meaningful
about the term "object" than there is of the term "locative" or "cause".
These are definitions of grammatical relationships between nouns and the
verb. "Header noun" refers to the noun's physical position, not its
grammatical function. It says nothing about the nature of the link between
the noun and the verb.
When you say "subject", you have a grammatical FUNCTION in mind when you
think of the term. When you say "direct object", you have a grammatical
FUNCTION in mind when you think of the term. When you say "header noun" you
have a physical position in the sentence in mind when you say the term. Any
description of the grammatical function of a header noun becomes quite
complex (all while you claim that you are doing this for simplicity's sake).
Meanwhile, the term "time stamp", which is, by position, a header noun, has
a specific grammatical function which is quite different from subject or
object. The function "locative" has a grammatical function which his
different from subject, object or time stamp. The term "cause" has a
grammatical function different from locative, time stamp, subject or object,
though by position, it is a "header noun".
> Now:
>
> puqvaD loDvaD je lurDechmo' betleH nob HoD.
> The captain gives the child and the man the bat'leth because of tradition.
>
> We both agree that this is a valid sentence. What is the /je/
> doing? It is
> joining /puqvaD/ and /loDvaD/. It is a conjunction. As it should be: we
> are linking /puqvaD/ and /loDvaD/. But . . . once again, it comes down to
> an interpretation: are we linking them grammatically, or are we
> linking them
> semantically?
Arguing that "man" and "child" are semantically similar and therefore
require a conjunction falls apart when you change the sentence to:
puq ja' loD.
The nouns are the same. Their meaning has not become less similar, and yet,
we do not join them with a conjunction. Why? Well, we don't join them
because they do not share the same grammatical link to the verb. They now
serve different grammatical roles. Any time they share the same grammatical
role, they need to be joined by a conjunction. Your examples prove this out.
> Let's take a simple sentence:
>
> betleH nob HoD.
> The captain gives the bat'leth.
>
> Now let's add a conjunction.
>
> betleH nob HoD la' je.
> The captain and the commander give the bat'leth.
>
> Is this not Object-Verb-Subject sentence structure? Is this not what TKD
> describes? TKD describes basic sentence structure, but does not
> actually go
> and explain the grammar behind the possibility of using a
> conjunction in the
> subject or object position. But I see no reason to say it's not
> Object-Verb-Subject structure. If you like, you can call it
>
> [Object [Object [Object [. . .]] je] Verb [Subject [Subject [. . .]] je]
>
> structure, but that's getting needlessly messy. In any case,
> neither of us
> has a problem with recognizing /HoD/ as a subject, and /la'/ as a subject.
Exactly. They both are subject. They share the same grammatical role,
therefore, a conjunction is required. If they had different grammatical
roles, there would be no need for a conjunction. This is why this is useful
to show that different Type 5 noun suffixes define different grammatical
roles. If two nouns have different Type 5 noun suffixes in a sentence, we
don't need a conjunction to join them. If two nouns have the same Type 5
noun suffix, they do require a conjunction, just as two subjects require a
conjunction or two objects require a conjunction or two time stamps require
a conjunction.
> So what about /puqvaD loDvaD je lurDechmo' betleH nob HoD/? Why are you
> driven to add /je/ here, you ask? Because you are linking these ideas.
> They are associated in the context, and you want to demonstrate that
> association.
The context is the grammar, not the semantics. These two nouns have the same
grammatical role in the sentence. They link to the same verb through the
same syntax. By this, we see that the nouns you wish to lump together as a
single grammatical class "header nouns" do not successfully lump together
because they don't require a conjunction to join them if their Type 5
suffixes are different. Meanwhile, if their Type 5 noun suffix is the same,
they do require a conjunction. This is quite consistent. The reason for the
consistency is the grammar, not the meanings of the individual words.
> Just as I have no problem accepting both /HoD/ and /la'/ as
> subjects, I have no problem accepting /puqvaD/ and /loDvaD/ as "header"
> nouns. Why don't you have conjunctions for all "header" nouns? Because
> they aren't particularly associated with each other in context.
The point is that the "context" is the grammar. The only thing that requires
nouns to be joined by a conjunction is that they have the same grammatical
link to the verb.
It quacks like a duck.
> There is no
> particular link between /lurDechmo'/ and those other two nouns.
There's no GRAMMATICAL link between {lurDechmo'} and those other two nouns.
There is a positional link. They are all "header nouns", but that says
nothing about their grammar except that time stamps and all Type 5 suffixed
nouns are placed together in a Klingon sentence in a location that leads you
to call them "header nouns" and treat them as if they had the same
grammatical function.
> Aha! you cry. No link! It's syntax!! Well, not as I see it. There's
> syntax here because we've got the syntax of conjunctions, which certainly
> seems to be a feature that Klingon linguists recognize. So if you want to
> say that this shows a different syntax, then in that sense I agree. But
> what we've got is still "header" noun phrases. That's all. Some are
> conjoined because they are associated with each other.
And the nature of that association is...?
> Along the same lines, I also see no problem with this sentence:
>
> Dujvo' yuQDaq je machIjlaH'a'?
> Can we navigate from the ship and to the planet?
To me, the word {je} is simply jammed where it doesn't belong. The only way
I could see this as right would be if it were in the context of following a
statement by someone else of something like {Dujvo' HovDaq machIjlaHbej.}
Now, having established that you can navigate from the ship to the star, you
want to know if you ALSO can navigate from the ship to the planet.
Conjunctions do not join nouns that don't share a grammatical link to the
verb. I've never seen it done in canon.
> Here I've conjoined nouns ending in different Type 5 suffixes,
> which to you
> play entirely different syntactic roles. Sure, you could say
> that this has
> to be /Dujvo' yuQDaq machIjlaH'a'/, but I can also say that the /je/ works
> just fine. They're associated concepts.
No. This is simply ungrammatical.
> If you still think this proves syntax and only syntax (what am I saying?
> Nothing I say can possibly change your mind!), then feel free to keep that
> opinion. I do think, however, that this is the strongest of any argument
> you've brought to this discussion (and nearly the only non-circular one).
>
> ASIDE
> In fact, I see no explicit reason why you can't say
>
> puqvaD loDvaD lurDechmo' betleH nob HoD.
>
> There seems to be no rule against it, but we don't want to do it, whether
> because these concepts are closely related, or because it
> violates some kind
> of unstated syntax. So let's ignore this example, and concentrate on the
> conjunction.
> END ASIDE
This is no different from saying:
ja'chuq puq loD.
Yes, you could say it. No, it wouldn't be right. Unless you meant "The
child's man talked to each other"(?). I guess I'd assume it meant "The
child's men talked to each other." That would be slightly less gibberish.
> > Am I saying anything here that you find interesting? Does it affect
> anything
> > that you have been believing up to this point, at least enough to cause
> you
> > to reconsider?
>
> In other words, "Aha! Did I getcha? Did I getcha?" Sheesh.
You are determined to make this political and competitive. I'm not trying to
win. I'm trying to get us to agree on some basic truths about the language
so that we can move on to actually communicating with the language instead
of spending so much time writing in English our inflexible arguments about
how the grammar and semantics work. I cannot agree that header nouns is a
grammatically meaningful term. It speaks only of a word's position in the
sentence and Okrand has explicitly explained that position merely defines a
subset of the total grammatical roles for nouns. Type 5 suffixes define and
differentiate other grammatical roles. That's why he called them syntactic
markers. Some roles are defined by position while others are defined by the
suffix, yet you insist that every grammatical role in a Klingon sentence is
defined by position and only by position. You made up your own positionally
based term "header nouns" in order to lump together things according to
position, ignoring that the suffixes also define grammatical roles in the
sentence, despite Okrand's rather clear explanation to the contrary.
> Better yet, answer this question: has anything I said affect anything that
> YOU have been believing? At least enough to cause you to reconsider?
Certainly, you have done a lot to clarify my thoughts about this area that I
honestly had not thought a lot about until you pointed it out. I never would
have noticed the conjunction thing, certainly. A lot of good has come out of
this conversation. I have tried to see the common grammatical thread
connecting all "header nouns" and so far as I can see, there isn't one. You
and ghunchu'wI' have certainly not explained what the single grammatical
function is for header nouns. The only thing they really have in common is
position in the sentence. That is not the same thing as a grammatical
function. Syntax is more than just word order.
> Though it's unlikely that you'll actually admit it, I'm convinced that the
> answer is "no." You're convinced, you're entrenched, and you consider
> yourself challenger of any dissenting opinion.
I've looked seriously at the idea and I honestly don't see any substance in
it. Please explain to me what "the" grammatical function is of header nouns
in a Klingon sentence. You have not done that even once, despite an
impressive quantity of rather empassioned verbage.
I keep giving you evidence that the different Type 5 suffixes give nouns
different grammatical functions in a sentence and you keep rejecting that,
claiming only that it has something to do with "meaning" instead, though you
never get around to explaining what that relationship of meanings actually
is or how it works. It really is as if you honestly believe that word order
is the only element defining Klingon grammar.
> > I'm sure are canon examples of this sort of conjunctions,
> > though I don't wish to take the time to find them right now and I doubt
> that
> > you doubt this, so I don't feel it is really necessary. Let me
> know if you
> > disagree.
>
> In fact, what I doubt is that there are any examples of this in
> canon. The
> only examples of multiple "header" nouns in a sentence I can think of are
>
> naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?
> qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.
>
> We simply haven't seen any conjunctions in "header" nouns, whether for
> similar or dissimilar Type 5'd nouns. If there are some I haven't
> remembered, I'd appreciate someone pointing them out. Until
> then, there is
> no evidence of this anyway.
If this is true, it is quite unfortunate. Meanwhile, it is once again after
midnight and I once again have to get up early to work tomorrow, plus
there's this Jury Duty thing looming and quite possibly torpedoing all plans
to attend qep'a'.
charghwI'
> SuStel
> Stardate 539.0