tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 05 09:32:24 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Expelling Ambiguity
jajvetlh quv'e' jIHvaD bIjatlh.
From: "Will Martin" <[email protected]>
> My problem is that you have chosen a pile of ambiguous words and
grammatical
> constructions which have most likely unintentionally crashed into each
other
> in this specific example. The ambiguities:
When I wrote the sentence, I wasn't really paying attention to whether it
was ambiguous or not. The expulsion of /qel/ was foremost on my mind. I
agree very much with your interpretation of the ambiguities, though some are
easily rectified (and others less easily fixed).
> {jajvetlh} might be a time stamp or a regular noun, possibly a direct
> object, or in this case, maybe a direct quotation.
The only verb in this sentence, /bIjatlh/, has a prefix indicating "no
object." So it's very unlikely that /jajvetlh/ is an object.
A time stamp IS a regular noun, as far as I know. When you see a noun in a
"header" position (and we've worked out that it's not an object), without
any other indication of its contextual meaning (usually with a Type 5 noun
suffix), and that noun can have a meaning of time, it's pretty likely that
it's a time stamp for the sentence.
This is one of things I find so interesting about "header space": you toss
nouns into it like a soup. You have to be careful what it's made of or
wrapped in, though. A location like /vaS'a'/ that isn't a subject or object
gets thrown into the "header soup," but if it's not marked AS a location
(vaS'a'Daq), the listener doesn't know what it's there for.
And for something really agonizing: I don't see why a time stamp-intended
noun can't ALSO have a Type 5 noun suffix! An example:
wa'leS'e' maghIQchoH. 'IH jajvetlh 'e' lupIH muD tej.
We'll start our vacation tomorrow (as topic). Meteorologists expect that
day will be beautiful.
(But since we're trying to ELIMINATE ambiguities, let's not go there any
further!)
> {quv'e'} might be a noun with a Type 5 noun suffix, or it might be an
> adjectival verb inheriting a Type 5 noun suffix from the noun it is
> modifying, {jajvetlh}.
This particular ambiguity, at least, can be eliminated by using /batlh/
instead of /quv/.
jajvetlh batlh'e' jIHvaD bIjatlh
There's still no way to tell whether /jajvetlh/ and /batlh'e'/ aren't a
noun-noun construction, or just two nouns near eath other. But at least it
can't be "that honored day!" And /batlh/ can't be the adverb, because it's
got a noun suffix on it.
> Add that this particular Type 5 noun suffix is known to have two
> grammatically independent functions in the language. It can either
indicate
> the Topic, making it independant of the basic OVS sentence structure of a
> typical sentence, or it can be a focus marker, allowing the noun to be the
> object or subject or head noun, or such. In other words, it sometimes
> participates in the OVS structure and other times it is independent of it.
> At the beginning of the sentence, you can't always tell, so it is a point
of
> ambivalence built into the language.
To futher muddy the waters, I'm not convinced that a noun with /-'e'/ in the
subject or object positions can't be indicating a topic. The examples we
have tend to demonstrate emphasis, but examples aren't conclusive, and the
examples we have can, in some cases, be interpreted either way.
nuH'e' nuD SuvwI'. jej. tIq. HoS. ghaytan Hoch jaghpu'Daj HoHlaH SuvwI'
lo'chugh.
The warrior examimed the weapon (topic). It was sharp, long, and strong.
The warrior could probably kill all his enemies if he used it.
But as it is unlikely that one would throw a noun into "header space"
without some indication of what it was doing there, it seems unlikely that
one would throw a noun there with only emphasis placed on it. You don't
know any more about it now than you did if it didn't have empahsis. If, on
the other hand, you interpret /-'e'/ as topic, you now know what the noun is
there for. Generally, header nouns with /-'e'/ only make sense as topics,
unless the meaning is otherwise clear from context (as with time stamps).
So we're left with two possible interpretations:
jajvetlh batlh'e' jIHvaD bIjatlh
that day's honor (topic)
that day, honor (topic)
I certainly agree that it's difficult to tell whether the written sentence
means you told me about that day's honor, or if you told me about honor that
day. Among us humans (I don't have much data on Klingon speech patterns), a
pause after /jajvetlh/ would solve everything:
jajvetlh, batlh'e' jIHvaD bIjatlh.
That day, you spoke to me about honor.
> Now, add that you are working with {jatlh}, which can be used as a normal
> verb, or it can be used in the special way that verbs of speech are used
in
> direct quotation, meaning that the verb of speech is grammatically
> independent of that which is being quoted. In other words, maybe {jajvetlh
> quv'e'} is a direct quotation, or maybe it is just a pair of header nouns
> for {jatlh} being used intransitively. We can't tell.
True, but if /jajvetlh batlh'e'/ is a quotation, or even /jajvetlh quv'e'/,
it doesn't seem to say much. Keep in mind that this sentence would be said
in a larger context.
> So, basically, I like the idea that you are promoting, but the specific
> example you came up with is so rife with ambiguity as to not carry any
real
> meaning without a lot more context.
Context would certainly help a lot more. I think the thought process I went
through to demonstrate that the ambiguities are manageable is too complex
for quick interpretation when it's written out, though I do think that if I
walked up to you and said /jajvetlh, . . . **batlh'e'** jIHvaD (point to
myself) bIjatlh (point to you)/, you'd understand immediately. I have a
tendency to leave out punctuation when writing Klingon.
> Actually, looking at it, this sentence is a shining star of ambiguity.
Four
> words form a sentence with either five or seven radically different
meanings
> (depending on whether you think the Topic/Focus ambiguity in the first two
> translations above to merit separate meanings). I'd be hard pressed to
come
> up with an example with that efficient of a combination of ambiguous
factors
> in the language. It's really beautiful, in a dark, twisted kind of way.
:)
Hurghbogh SuStel 'ej tlhe'pu'bogh
Stardate 1343.4