tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 18 13:37:22 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 12:56 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Deixis and direction
>
>
> jatlh charghwI' ghunchu'wI' je:
> > > KGT page 118: {latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIpang!}
> > >
> > > I view this use of {-Daq} as showing the "target" of the pouring, and
> I'm
> > > absolutely convinced that the explicit object removes {pang}
> from being
> > > considered as one of those special verbs. The translation
> "at" seems a
> > > reasonable one for most uses of {-Daq}, including the minor ambiguity
> that
> > > the English carries with it.
> >
> > If the liquid is not yet in the glass, then you have not poured yet. In
> this
> > case, the locative really is the place where the action occurs.
> This is a
> > pure example of the action occuring in the glass. It's not like
> running to
> a
> > city. You are running to a city long before you get there, but the verb
> > "pour" refers to that action that occurs while part of the liquid is in
> the
> > source and part of the liquid is in the target. When that connection is
> > broken (when the action is no longer occuring in the location of the
> > pouring), then you are no longer pouring.
>
>
> I'm with ghunchu'wI' on this one. You could probably come up with
> justifications for any "target" locative, how it's really where the action
> takes place. I simply disagree, and think you're being needlessly
> restrictive. If I'd seen a lot of canon sentences obviously
> trying to avoid
> "target" locatives I might agree with you, but the fact is that we just
> haven't had a lot of them. Okrand doesn't avoid them; he simply hasn't
> written them.
>
> DujDaq yIQeq.
> Aim at the ship.
I'm genuinely uncertain as to whether this should be {DujDaq yIQeq} or
{DujvaD yIQeq}. The ship is the indirect object of aiming, in my opinion.
The direct object would be whatever weapon I'm aiming.
> HIvje'Daq yIqang.
> Pour it into the cup.
I agree, but only because pouring happens in the cup. You don't pour in the
bottle. You pour FROM the bottle. The pouring happens in the cup.
> lupDujHomvo' qachDaq Sup Sub.
> The hero jumped from the shuttlecraft to the building.
True. Meanwhile, if it were just {qachDaq Sup Sub}, most people would
interpret that to mean he was in the building and he jumped. Probably just
up and down.
> HewDaq jIlegh.
> I look at the statue.
Totally wrong here. {legh} means "see" not "look". You swapped English verbs
and assumed the same prepositions would work, but they don't even work in
English. You don't see at the statue. You see the statue. This really is the
whole crux of my arguement.
If I told you in English to go see at the statue, you'd assume that I meant
you are supposed to go over to the statue and look around, probably not
toward the statue. Think about it.
> I don't see why it's worth arguing with or justifying these.
I do see where it is worth clarifying things. The {legh} example is
particularly telling. The whole point here is that different verbs take
different kinds of objects and part of learning the language is determining
which verbs take which kinds of objects.
In the interview with Okrand, when I was trying to understand {Hop} and
{Sum}, without thinking deeply, I thought maybe that if I were to say, "The
glass is near you", then "you" would be the indirect object, but Okrand
corrected me. For that verb, that is wrong. For that verb, "you" are the
location of the action of the verb "be near", so it should be {SoHDaq} and
not {SoHvaD}, but that is only because "you" is not an appropriate indirect
object for the verb {Sum}.
We can't just make up some rule and apply it to all verbs, and we can't just
throw out all restrictions and say any verb can use any locative or indirect
object or direct object. If we want to really learn this language, we need
to learn WHICH verbs can use WHICH nouns as locatives, indirect objects or
direct objects.
Prepositions are very quirky in any language. Prepositional concepts are
handled differently with different verbs. Sometimes it's a locative,
sometimes an indirect object, sometimes a direct object. We need to learn
these things. We can't get too casual about it, or we just wind up being
sloppy and speaking like those really badly written instructions on things
printed in other countries. "Please to insert at tab A into slot B." That
sort of thing.
> > > >...I strongly suspect that {lurgh} is the kind of abstract
> > > >that can't take {-Daq}. It is not a noun that has a
> location. It is an
> > > >abstract of the concept of location that is missing a measurement of
> > > >distance; a vector without quantity.
> > >
> > > I wonder how you reconcile that interpretation with the
> existence of the
> > > words {tIng} and {'ev} and {chan}.
> >
> > Good point. Excellent point. Their existance is not such a big deal, but
> he
> > did use them with {-Daq}. This does seem to conflict with his earlier
> > statement that {-Daq} did not belong on abstract nouns, but
> only on nouns
> to
> > literally refer to a location in space. This abstract nature is made
> > explicit when he explains that there is no place that can be called
> {chan}.
> > Unlike on Earth, there is no "Far East" because there is always a place
> East
> > of any other place.
>
>
> I seem to recall Okrand clarifying that locative suffixes don't work on
> nouns that don't specify something to do with a spatial reference. He may
> have used the word "abstract" somewhere, but I'm certain he means
> that words
> like "time" and "treason" and "temperature" have absolutely no relation to
> spatial concepts, and thus can't use /-Daq/. I'm sure he doesn't
> mean that
> /lurgh/, which seems a very spatial noun to me, can't have /-Daq/
> or /-vo'/
> on it.
I think you are right. Having thought more about this, I agree.
> jatlh Okrand:
> > 'evmajDaq jIwampu' "I have hunted northwest of here"
> > ... tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq jIlengpu' "I've traveled all over the
> place"
>
>
> > Meanwhile, this gets back to deixis. Unless the deictic reference is
> shifted
> > explicitly, {chan} always means "East of the person speaking". So
> {chanDaq}
> > would be a direction relative to the speaker. It is weird
> because it is a
> > direction and not a location, but then this is not that different from
> > {bIng} or {Dung} or similar directional nouns long known to have a
> locative
> > function with {-Daq}.
>
>
> It isn't weird if one relaxes one's concept of "locative." It
> needn't mean
> "precise location in space." It can be vague, just as many other language
> concepts can be vague. And since one's understanding of these
> directions is
> largely supported by deixis, which is all about non-explicit references, I
> think these concepts really do need to be relaxed.
Again, you may be right on this, too. Meanwhile, I do believe that we should
pay more attention to where a locative is appropriate at all. The verb is
core. The specific verb is core.
> > Now the question in MY mind is, since we apparently can refer to nouns
> which
> > imply a specific direction relative to the speaker (bIng, Dung, chan,
> > 'ev...), can this also be applied to the noun that generically refers to
> > direction?
>
>
> 'evDaq jIwam.
> I hunt in the northwest.
>
> I can see you possibly rejecting this sentence on the basis that
> /'ev/ must
> be in relation to me, but that I can't be hunting somewhere other
> than were
> I am.
Actually, I don't have that much trouble with this. It is a little vague as
to whose NorthWest we are talking about, but we can consider it to be a
global enough NW, and besides, I'd tend to believe that this is something
you'd say while you are not hunting. The deictic reference is to direction
while you are speaking, not while you are hunting.
If you were hunting while speaking to me on some sort of communication
device, I'd expect you to be clearer with something like {'evlIjDaq jIwam.}
> On the other hand, I can also see you arguing that the deixis focus
> has shifted because of this very fact. And I would claim that this is the
> flexibility of deixis. To who's northwest am I hunting? The sentence
> doesn't give enough information. Sentences that don't give enough
> information are legal.
I think that the default is the deictic reference given by any of the
directional nouns {'ev, chan, tIng} is that of the speaker, unless
explicitly shifted somewhere else.
> lurghvamDaq jIwam.
> I hunt in this direction.
If you are pointing, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Your act of
speaking gives the deixis here.
> Presumably, one would accompany this with a hand gesture, or by following
> the previous sentence. I mean, what kind of sentences are you going to be
> uttering in which no context at all has any bearing on /lurgh/?
> And if the
> meaning changes due to context, isn't this what deixis is all about?
>
>
> > Particularly, if we use a noun-noun possessive construction with
> > the second noun being {lurgh}, does that remove the distance componant
> from
> > the locative that would have been formed by applying {-Daq} directly to
> the
> > first noun?
>
>
> The noun-noun construction ending with /lurgh/ is a modified
> /lurgh/ phrase.
> If I talk about /Qanqor lurgh/, I wasn't talking about /Qanqor/, I was
> talking about the /lurgh/ related to him. Nothing's been removed. /-Daq/
> never belonged on /Qanqor/ to begin with. Your deixis focus is determined
> by the first noun, which is modifying /lurgh/.
I think this is worth questioning, even if the result of the question is to
say you are right and I'm wrong. Meanwhile, if you are right (and I think
you are), then we have to consider whether a locative is appropriate for
this particular verb at all, as illustrated by your use of {legh} above.
> > The problem I have with this is that all these other directional
> references
> > are deictic while using {X lurghDaq} is not.
> >
> > Please pause to think about this for a minute. It's a weird concept.
> >
> > If I say {chanDaq vIghoS}, then I'm going East RELATIVE TO ME.
> >
> > If I say {Qanqor chanDaq vIghoS}, then I'm going East RELATIVE
> TO KRANKOR.
> >
> > But if I say {Qanqor lurghDaq vIghoS}, then I'm talking about going in a
> > direction which is related to both of us.
>
>
> I don't think it's useful to say "This is deitic and this is absolute."
> There is very little, I think, that is absolute in any sentence (unless
> you're speaking a language designed with absolutes in mind).
I yield the point. You are right. Then again, we need to consider the verb.
> Additionally, I'm not saying
> > anything different from {QanqorDaq vIghoS}. Remember that I don't ever
> have
> > to actually REACH Krankor for that statement to be true. All I
> have to do
> is
> > approach him / travel along the path that is related to him. What is
> {lurgh}
> > adding here?
>
>
> In this sentence? Nothing. I don't think it's a particularly relevant
> question,
The verb makes the difference.
> > I'm getting confused. The Krankor-shifted deixis relates to Krankor
> himself,
> > at his core, not in any real direction relative to Krankor, though it is
> > indeed Krankor's direction, but if it is Krankor's direction, then what
> > direction is that relative to Krankor, but it's NO direction relative to
> > Krankor because it is the direction Krankor is in, but...
>
>
> This is exactly what I mean about relaxing the deixis idea. It's not as
> absolute as this. Deixis is not about "when it's said this way, it always
> means this." It's largely based on context, as well as combined with the
> specific word and grammar used.
Agreed.
> SuStel
> Stardate 457.8
charghwI'