tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 23 21:45:59 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: GHED (Unnecessary pronouns)

ghItlh peHruS:

>The unnecessary pronouns are jIH, SoH, ghaH, maH, tlhIH and chaH.
Klingon
>speakers are allowed to use these pronouns in just such sentences; they
just
>do not need to use them.  The reason the pronouns are not necessary in
the
>sentences presented is that each verb has a prefix which indicates who
is
>doing the action to a third-person object.

I was skimming the list a bit, and this particular item leaped out at
me.

Quite simply, I think you're wrong. You overstate your case. The use of
these "unnecessary" pronouns may be very deliberate and necessary. While
the syntax of a sentence may not require their inclusion, syntax is just
one part of a language's grammar. Consider for a moment the role of
pragmatics, and these "unnecessary" pronouns can be essential.

Let's take one of your example sentences:

>be' DaSov SoH = You know the woman.

Here the "unnecessary" pronoun is presumably <SoH>, a subject which is
already made clear by the verb prefix. We're certainly in agreement on
that. But what you seem to neglect to mention is *why* a speaker might
choose to include this "unnecessary" pronoun. Okrand tells us they can
be added for emphasis. I'll agree, but I'll give you a grammatical focus
and point to pragmatics. Consider your example sentence in a context
which includes the following statement (by the same speaker) first:

be' vISovbe' = I don't know the woman.

Now the use of that "unnecessary" pronoun takes on a new light. It's not
simply a redundancy, it's not just repeating information provided by the
verb prefix. Rather, its use allows for contrast (and therebye emphasis
as well) with the extended discourse involved. It's not me who knows
this woman, it's YOU!

Yes, it's certainly possible -- and even commonplace -- to form sentence
without explicitly repeating pronouns that are supplied by a verb
prefix, and if people only spoke in individual sentences you'd have a
real case here. But not even the Klingons are so curt. Communication
includes more than just staccato utterances, and any time you progress
beyond that to the more interesting realm of connected discourse you
need to remember that pragmatics, not just syntax, has to be considered.

Lawrence

Back to archive top level