tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 16 05:24:56 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Thinking the sentence structure
Without going into it too much, it took me a while to understand what you
were saying because I think it was how I always thought about it before I
first picked up TKD. Its possibly because I'm not a linguist but when I see
an Enlish word with a suffix I didn't used to see anything other than a
single word. It didn't make any difference to the way I understood the word.
Putting it another way about any words, I did not think of ones like speaker
as a [root verb
(speak)+suffix (-er)] word as anything other than a word in its own right.
It was just the word [speaker]. So the wholeconcept of breaking words down
has been a big learning curve for me. I just
assumed I was ignorant. Language for me had just been communication and if
it worked, it worked. I now believe that it is interesting and valuable to
know how a
language works but agree that sometimes it can be overkill. Its nice to
know why water boils when you heat it but when you put the kettle on how
often
do you think about the process of what's really .
As to thinking the sentence structure I have for a long time thought
prefixes in the same order as Klingons eg "I ate the pie" as "Pie, it-I
ate". I found that thinking that way made easier to learn them.
Back to your subject on considering a [noun phrase+Type5] as just
[noun phrase], would you extend this concept to verbs? If so would this
take us
back to an old argument especially when rovers get involved
eg [pre+verb+T7+be'] being [[pre+verb+T7]+be'] or [pre+verb+[T7+be']].
For example consider the following sentences
[I've completed my assignment] not] and
[I've not completed my assignment]
I know the first doesn't make a lot of english sense but you often hear that
kind of usage to catch people out by not negating something until the
speaker has finished.
I've always argued that they both acheive the same result but have been
slated in the past. My arguement has always been the intertpretration of
MO's use of "concept" in
TKD 4.3. "It follows the concept being negated." He also said "Their
position is determined by the meaning intended" so if both the above can be
understood to mean the same thing and a "concept" can be more than one
factor of a verb construction then why not?
The most frustrating thing I find is when you ask if a sentence is ok and/or
could it be improved. Sometimes you can get replies telling all the various
reasons why it isn't but not get any assistance on how to correct it.
qe'San
----- Original Message -----
From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
To: tlhIngan-Hol Mailing List <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 6:35 AM
Subject: 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