tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 16 06:43:59 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Thinking the sentence structure
jatlh qe'San:
> 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 .
This is very similar to what I was talking about. You're right on with the
"speaker" example. Yes, it's "speak" + "-er," but it's thought of as a
single word in a sentence, not a compound. Klingon noun suffixes are more
flexible, but they should still be considered part of the whole word.
> 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.
The "concept" I'll extend is the "get over it" concept. We need to get over
the desire for exacting procedures and just go with it. I think that the
scope of rovers can vary depending on what the speaker is talking about, but
more importantly, I see little reason anymore in trying to restrict its
usage.
> 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.
That depends on many things. In the past I've noticed that I tend to end
things with how *I* would do it, but I also spend a great deal of time
typing in a full explanation of whatever it is. Other experts on the list
often prefer the "I'll give you a hint; let's see if you get it" method. I
don't like this as much because the person may NOT get it, and it can seem
awfully patronizing.
On the other hand, I've seen people demand the unreasonable. When I was
Beginners' Grammarian, I often had to stop and tell someone that they were
simply demanding too much of my time. "You're trying to do too much," I
would say. "Simplify." If it was that much work for me, chances are that
correcting everything wasn't the solution anyway.
And sometimes, the answer really is just "maybe." Sometimes we don't know
for sure. Sometimes one may ask a question which is very controversial
around here, and which has been hotly debated before. And sometimes (often)
people who are trying to help go off on amazing tangents, leaving the
original questioner in the dust.
KLBC is a good idea, and KLIC isn't too bad (though I won't be using it
myself). I've often thought we need a KLQA, which could be thought of as
"Klingon Language Quick Answers" or "Klingon Language Question and Answer,"
which is not governed by a Grammarian, but in which tangents are not
allowed. Just answer the question. I don't expect to see this, however.
SuStel
Stardate 458.8