tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 15 22:36:42 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Thinking the sentence structure



Just for your consideration.  For a long time, I thought of Klingon
sentences not including dependent clauses, etc., like this:

<question word> <timestamp> <noun phrase+Type5> <adverbial> <object> <verb>
<subject>.

In this sentence, "timestamp," "object," and "subject" are nouns or noun
phrases which do not have Type 5 noun suffixes.  There can be more than one
noun phrase+Type5.

I now don't agree with this at all.  Here's a somewhat revised, but not
perfect, plan:

<question word> <noun phrase> <adverbial> <object> <verb> <subject>.

Note that here, "noun phrase" can include timestamps, locatives, reasons;
whatever suffixes or grammatical features it's got.  Object (and possibly
subject) are not explicitly without Type 5 suffixes, although it is not
always correct to include them.  "Noun phrase" simply means it's not a
subject or object.

"Duh," you say.  An example or two of what I'm babbling about:

"Yesterday, I ate supper quickly in the dining room."

Old-style thinking:

<timestamp=yesterday> <noun phrase + Type 5=in the dining room>
<adverbial=quickly> >object=supper> <verb=ate> <subject=I>.

New-style thinking:

<noun phrase 1=yesterday> <noun phrase 2=in the dining room>
<adverbial=quickly> <object=supper> <verb=ate> <subject=I>.

Both yield

wa'Hu' SopmeH pa'Daq nom 'uQ vISop [jIH].

See what I'm getting at?  Your location is NOT expressed by "noun phrase in
the before-main-sentence spot plus Type 5 suffix."  Your location is
expressed by a noun phrase with a Type 5 suffix, which is placed in the
before-main-sentence spot.  See the difference?

When considering where I ate, I didn't take

wa'Hu' <somewhere>-Daq nom 'uQ vISop.

and add in /SopmeH pa'/.  I started with

wa'Hu' <somewhere> nom 'uQ vISop.

and added in /SopmeH pa'Daq/.  There is no difference between the
"timestamp's" grammatical function and the "locative's" grammatical
function.  To Klingon linguists, they're just noun phrases which aren't
subjects or objects.

This is also one reason why I don't like distinguising between "direct
objects" and "indirect objects" in Klingon.  "Objects" are a grammatical
feature of Klingon.  "Indirect objects" are really just noun phrases which
include the /-vaD/ suffix.  /-vaD/ is a part of the noun phrase, not a part
of the sentence.

It isn't

<someone>-vaD SoQ vIjatlh.

It's

<for someone> SoQ vIjatlh.

The "for someone" might be /ghomvaD/.  I'm not adding /ghom/ into an
otherwise complete sentence.  I'm adding /ghomvaD/ into an otherwise
complete sentence.

Anyone understand what I'm trying to communicate?  I think we list members
have broken down Klingon into more grammatical pieces than it really should
be.  We talk about the rules of locatives and timestamps and so on with
authority, but my revised idea of the structure of Klingon sentences reminds
me that Klingon grammar is actually very simple.  I find it hard to believe
that the Klingons would quibble over many of the things we quibble over.  We
Terran linguists resolve an argument by breaking the sentence down into many
pieces, but a Klingon linguist would just look at it and say something like,
"It's a beginning-of-sentence noun.  Who cares if it's an indirect object or
not?  It says what it means."

juHwIjDaq vIghoS.
I go to my home.
<object=juHwIjDaq> <verb=vIghoS> <subject=jIH>

juHwIj vIghoS.
I go to my home.
<object=juHwIj> <verb=vIghoS> <subject=jIH>

juHwIjDaq jIghoS.
I go in my home (I'm home as I go somewhere inside it.)
<noun phrase=juHwIjDaq> <verb=jIghoS> <subject=jIH>

ghorgh juHwIjDaq vIghoS?
When do I go to my home?
<question word=ghorgh> <noun phrase=juHwIjDaq> <verb=vIghoS> <subject=jIH>

DoSDaq jIQeq.
I aim at the target.  (Controversy about whether you can "target" locatives
aside.)
<noun phrase=DoSDaq> <verb=jIQeq> <subject=jIH>

DoSDaq 'otlh peng vIQeq.
I aim the photon torpedo at the target.
<noun phrase=DoSDaq> <object='otlh peng> <verb=vIQeq> <subject=jIH>


Well, I hope SOMEBODY sees what I'm getting at.  No need to vocally disagree
with me; if you don't like it, just ignore it.  I'm not pushing it on
anyone.  But cheers for my insightfulness and genius and all-around
swellness are always welcome!  Monetary donations are appreciated, too.


SuStel
Stardate 457.8


Back to archive top level