tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 16 10:19:37 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Thinking the sentence structure
> ja' SuStel:
jIja'be'. jIjatlhqu'.
> > Here's a somewhat revised, but not perfect, plan:
> >
> > <question word> <noun phrase> <adverbial> <object> <verb> <subject>.
> >
> you've solicited it, so here it goes:
>
> three cheers for SuStel's insightfulness, genius and all-around swellnes
> Yay! Yay! Yay!
Aw, shucks!
> one comment: have you considered integrating the category "question
> word" into the rest, as they are usually taking the place of either
> a "noun phrase"/"object"/"subject" or a part of it (e.g. {'ar})?
> what do you think of this idea?
There's a good point in there, but perhaps not quite what you mean.
/qatlh/ is a "pure" question word. I don't see how it could substitute for
any other part of the basic sentence.
/ghorgh/ seems like it could be a substitute for a "noun phrase." After
all, it's referring to a timestamp, and timestamps are part of the noun
phrases.
/chay'/ seems like it could be a substitute for an adverbial. (At least,
one interpretation of /chay'/ could.) Perhaps it would go into the
adverbial spot.
/nuqDaq/ is a real killer. In most cases, it looks like it could substitute
for a noun phrase. In some cases, specifically, though perhaps not
exclusively, the verbs of motion, it looks like it could substitute for the
object.
/'Iv/ and /nuq/ are, of course, /chuvmey/ which are definitely placed in the
subject or object position, and /'ar/ is part of a noun phrase. (There's a
good question: can /'ar/ be part of any noun phrase, or only a noun phrase
in the subject or object position? Personally, I don't see any reason why
it can't be in any noun phrase.) They also play special exceptional roles I
won't get into here, when they're part of "to be" constructions.
All of the question words are /chuvmey/. They are not nouns. But you're
right: they may or may not be separate in the sentence.
ghorgh SopmeH pa'Daq 'uQ wISop?
When do we eat dinner in the dining room?
<question word=ghorgh> <noun phrase=SopmeH pa'Daq> <object='uQ> <verb=wISop>
<subject=maH>
or
<noun phrase 1=ghorgh> <noun phrase 2=SopmeH pa'Daq> <object='uQ>
<verb=wISop> <subject=maH>
qachDaq puq qIp 'Iv?
Who hit the child in the building?
<noun phrase=qachDaq> <object=puq> <verb=qIp> <subject='Iv>
nuqDaq wa'leS nIQ wISop? (*? wa'leS nuqDaq nIQ wISop?)
Where will we eat breakfast tomorrow?
<question word=nuqDaq> <noun phrase=wa'leS> <object=nIQ> <verb=wISop>
<subject=maH>
(*? <noun phrase 1=wa'leS> <noun phrase 2=nuqDaq> <object=nIQ> <verb=wISop>
<subject=maH> *?)
chay' letlhDaq mayIt? (*? letlhDaq chay' mayIt?)
How do we walk on the stairs?
<question word=chay'> <noun phrase=letlhDaq> <verb=mayIt> <subject=maH>
or
<noun phrase=letlhDaq> <adverbial=chay'> <verb=mayIt> <subject=maH>
Say! What canon do we have with question words and "noun phrases" (as I am
calling the category of "oblique" nouns)? I'll find some when I've got my
resources handy and see what orders they come in.
Questions are icky. Or at least, not simple.
> also, although I noticed you cautiously labelled your plan as "not
> perfect", <adverbials> are allowed to show up between <object> and
> <verb> if the object is marked with -'e'.
Yeah. I mean that it's the basic package, not every case. It's not
definitive by any means. It's meant as a guide to what's going on in
general.
A couple of special cases that aren't taken into account here include "to
be" sentences and comparitive sentences. They just work differently, and
the "to be" sentences are especially controversial.
> This raises the question
> as to whether objects marked with -Daq as in {juHwIjDaq vIghoS} may
> be followed by adverbials as well: ?{juHwIjDaq QIt vIghoS} and how
> this "interferes" with your interpretation of how words with suffixes
> are analyzed.
No, no, you're missing the point. Don't think of /juHwIjDaq/ as an object
/juHwIj/ marked with /-Daq/. Think of /juHwIjDaq/ as the object. That's
what it's doing.
juHwIjDaq vIghoS.
I go to my home.
<object=juHwIjDaq> <verb=vIghoS> <subject=jIH>
Here, /juHwIjDaq/ is NOT in the category of "noun phrase." It is the
"object." Having /-Daq/ does NOT always grammatically mean that the noun is
a non-object.
juHwIj vIghoS.
I go to my home.
<object=juHwIj> <verb=vIghoS> <subject=jIH>
QIt 'uQwIj vISop.
I eat my dinner slowly.
<adverbial=QIt> <object='uQwIj> <verb=vISop> <subject=jIH>
QIt juHwIjDaq vIghoS.
I go to my home slowly.
<adverbial=QIt> <object=juHwIjDaq> <verb=vIghoS> <subject=jIH>
> Certainly your interpretaion makes sense in languages
> like English. But languages like Turkish seem to be structurally
> closer to Klingon in the way they form words and especially verbs.
> Any native speakers of Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish out there?
Actually, I'm trying to get AWAY from the English interpretation, and trying
to discover the Klingon thinking. We have only a little evidence of that,
including canon (notably fickle), and the known structure of Klingon.
Remember, the grammar officially consists of nouns, verbs, and Everything
Else. Subdivisions are conveniences, probably created for Federation
scholars to study it.
I'm afraid I can't compare any of these to structurally dissimilar
languages, not knowing any. But I'd certainly be interested in others'
comparisons.
Anyway, everyone remember that what I've presented above and in other recent
messages are ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY. I am not attempting to define things
clearly.
SuStel
Stardate 459.2