tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 15 21:56:47 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Deixis and direction
jatlh charghwI' ghunchu'wI' je:
> > KGT page 118: {latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIpang!}
> >
> > I view this use of {-Daq} as showing the "target" of the pouring, and
I'm
> > absolutely convinced that the explicit object removes {pang} from being
> > considered as one of those special verbs. The translation "at" seems a
> > reasonable one for most uses of {-Daq}, including the minor ambiguity
that
> > the English carries with it.
>
> If the liquid is not yet in the glass, then you have not poured yet. In
this
> case, the locative really is the place where the action occurs. This is a
> pure example of the action occuring in the glass. It's not like running to
a
> city. You are running to a city long before you get there, but the verb
> "pour" refers to that action that occurs while part of the liquid is in
the
> source and part of the liquid is in the target. When that connection is
> broken (when the action is no longer occuring in the location of the
> pouring), then you are no longer pouring.
I'm with ghunchu'wI' on this one. You could probably come up with
justifications for any "target" locative, how it's really where the action
takes place. I simply disagree, and think you're being needlessly
restrictive. If I'd seen a lot of canon sentences obviously trying to avoid
"target" locatives I might agree with you, but the fact is that we just
haven't had a lot of them. Okrand doesn't avoid them; he simply hasn't
written them.
DujDaq yIQeq.
Aim at the ship.
HIvje'Daq yIqang.
Pour it into the cup.
lupDujHomvo' qachDaq Sup Sub.
The hero jumped from the shuttlecraft to the building.
HewDaq jIlegh.
I look at the statue.
I don't see why it's worth arguing with or justifying these.
> > >...I strongly suspect that {lurgh} is the kind of abstract
> > >that can't take {-Daq}. It is not a noun that has a location. It is an
> > >abstract of the concept of location that is missing a measurement of
> > >distance; a vector without quantity.
> >
> > I wonder how you reconcile that interpretation with the existence of the
> > words {tIng} and {'ev} and {chan}.
>
> Good point. Excellent point. Their existance is not such a big deal, but
he
> did use them with {-Daq}. This does seem to conflict with his earlier
> statement that {-Daq} did not belong on abstract nouns, but only on nouns
to
> literally refer to a location in space. This abstract nature is made
> explicit when he explains that there is no place that can be called
{chan}.
> Unlike on Earth, there is no "Far East" because there is always a place
East
> of any other place.
I seem to recall Okrand clarifying that locative suffixes don't work on
nouns that don't specify something to do with a spatial reference. He may
have used the word "abstract" somewhere, but I'm certain he means that words
like "time" and "treason" and "temperature" have absolutely no relation to
spatial concepts, and thus can't use /-Daq/. I'm sure he doesn't mean that
/lurgh/, which seems a very spatial noun to me, can't have /-Daq/ or /-vo'/
on it.
jatlh Okrand:
> 'evmajDaq jIwampu' "I have hunted northwest of here"
> ... tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq jIlengpu' "I've traveled all over the
place"
> Meanwhile, this gets back to deixis. Unless the deictic reference is
shifted
> explicitly, {chan} always means "East of the person speaking". So
{chanDaq}
> would be a direction relative to the speaker. It is weird because it is a
> direction and not a location, but then this is not that different from
> {bIng} or {Dung} or similar directional nouns long known to have a
locative
> function with {-Daq}.
It isn't weird if one relaxes one's concept of "locative." It needn't mean
"precise location in space." It can be vague, just as many other language
concepts can be vague. And since one's understanding of these directions is
largely supported by deixis, which is all about non-explicit references, I
think these concepts really do need to be relaxed.
> Now the question in MY mind is, since we apparently can refer to nouns
which
> imply a specific direction relative to the speaker (bIng, Dung, chan,
> 'ev...), can this also be applied to the noun that generically refers to
> direction?
'evDaq jIwam.
I hunt in the northwest.
I can see you possibly rejecting this sentence on the basis that /'ev/ must
be in relation to me, but that I can't be hunting somewhere other than were
I am. On the other hand, I can also see you arguing that the deixis focus
has shifted because of this very fact. And I would claim that this is the
flexibility of deixis. To who's northwest am I hunting? The sentence
doesn't give enough information. Sentences that don't give enough
information are legal.
lurghvamDaq jIwam.
I hunt in this direction.
Presumably, one would accompany this with a hand gesture, or by following
the previous sentence. I mean, what kind of sentences are you going to be
uttering in which no context at all has any bearing on /lurgh/? And if the
meaning changes due to context, isn't this what deixis is all about?
> Particularly, if we use a noun-noun possessive construction with
> the second noun being {lurgh}, does that remove the distance componant
from
> the locative that would have been formed by applying {-Daq} directly to
the
> first noun?
The noun-noun construction ending with /lurgh/ is a modified /lurgh/ phrase.
If I talk about /Qanqor lurgh/, I wasn't talking about /Qanqor/, I was
talking about the /lurgh/ related to him. Nothing's been removed. /-Daq/
never belonged on /Qanqor/ to begin with. Your deixis focus is determined
by the first noun, which is modifying /lurgh/.
> The problem I have with this is that all these other directional
references
> are deictic while using {X lurghDaq} is not.
>
> Please pause to think about this for a minute. It's a weird concept.
>
> If I say {chanDaq vIghoS}, then I'm going East RELATIVE TO ME.
>
> If I say {Qanqor chanDaq vIghoS}, then I'm going East RELATIVE TO KRANKOR.
>
> But if I say {Qanqor lurghDaq vIghoS}, then I'm talking about going in a
> direction which is related to both of us.
I don't think it's useful to say "This is deitic and this is absolute."
There is very little, I think, that is absolute in any sentence (unless
you're speaking a language designed with absolutes in mind).
Additionally, I'm not saying
> anything different from {QanqorDaq vIghoS}. Remember that I don't ever
have
> to actually REACH Krankor for that statement to be true. All I have to do
is
> approach him / travel along the path that is related to him. What is
{lurgh}
> adding here?
In this sentence? Nothing. I don't think it's a particularly relevant
question,
>
> I'm getting confused. The Krankor-shifted deixis relates to Krankor
himself,
> at his core, not in any real direction relative to Krankor, though it is
> indeed Krankor's direction, but if it is Krankor's direction, then what
> direction is that relative to Krankor, but it's NO direction relative to
> Krankor because it is the direction Krankor is in, but...
This is exactly what I mean about relaxing the deixis idea. It's not as
absolute as this. Deixis is not about "when it's said this way, it always
means this." It's largely based on context, as well as combined with the
specific word and grammar used.
SuStel
Stardate 457.8