tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 18 12:35:30 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Thinking the sentence structure
- From: [email protected] (William Martin)
- Subject: RE: Thinking the sentence structure
- Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:35:13 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 1:19 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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!
jIQochbe'.
> 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.
...
> /'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.
DaHjaj tachDaq 'ar bItlhutlhpu'?
I agree. No reason to limit {'ar}.
...
> chay' letlhDaq mayIt? (*? letlhDaq chay' mayIt?)
Either way would work for me. If I'm wrong, please remind me of the reason.
> 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.
Lost me on this one.
...
> > 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.
Agreed. It's weird by our earlier understanding of the grammar, but with
these special verbs, the locative is the direct object and grammatically, it
is treated purely as direct object and not as locative.
> 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.
Yes. This is a grammatical exception for a special class of verbs of motion
with {ghoS} as our first canon example.
> 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.
jIyaj.
> SuStel
> Stardate 459.2
charghwI'