tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 18 05:21:08 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq(pu'/mey)'e'
lab SuStel:
btw: the subject of this message is /tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh
puq'e'/, wouldn't there have to a /-pu'/ (or a /-mey/) after /puq/?
>From: "Stephan Schneider" <[email protected]>
>> >The only
>> >Type 5 suffix whose meaning doesn't usually preclude putting it in
>subject
>> >or object position is /-'e'/, which can mean either "focus" or "topic"
>(and
>> >I don't like the idea of automatically saying that it is one in one
>position
>> >and the other in another position).
>>
>> what did you mean in brackets? what positions?
>
>I don't think we can necessarily say "If it's a subject or object it must be
>focus, and if it's a header it must be topic."
i didn't want to draw this conclusion. and thinking about it now... i
don't think so neither.
i'd simply like to interpret that a focus is some sort of case and
that a topic is just... somehow like the definite article "the", or
"the one which". the latter doesn't mean any case. and after all, a
case doesn't immediatly determine the part-of-sentence. for example,
a locative, as we have learned, can be the object of a verb like
/ghoS/.
anyway, in tkd there is no distinction between focus and topic, as
far is i remember.
> > you're mixing up 'case' and 'part-of-sentence'.
>
>No, but I may not be using the same terminology as you. The word "case" is
>undefined for Klingon as far as the stuff Okrand has given us.
the same goes for "header". there is no "header" in tkd but you all
use this word, because you saw the _ovs-structure_, and you saw that
there is a _sentence_, and that often there is something that is
part-of-sentence but not part of the ovs-structure, and you called
that "header". that's a good motivation, i think. we need names.
what happended? making a discussions about grammar, you came to
realize that there is a word missing, and the same thing happened to
me when i thought about the noun (noun-phrases) in klingon sentences:
/juHwIjDaq vIghoS/ - "i'm going home."
/juHwIj vIlegh/ - "i see my home."
in the first sentence /juHwIjDaq/ is the object of /vIghoS/.
/juHwIjDaq/, however, is a locative.
in the second sentence /juHwIj/ is the object of /vIlegh/. /juHwIj/,
however, is a ... how do you call it? "accusative"?
in both cases the verb has an object.
in the first sentence, the object is a locative and the second
sentence the object is an accusative. but what is the general set,
that locatives and accusatives are part of? _cases_!
so /-Daq/ changed the case, and is therefore something like a "case
tag" or a "case marker".
if this is an illusion, then tell me: what is the difference between
/juHwIjDaq/ and /juHwIj/ in the sentences above? when /juHwIjDaq/ is
a locative, what is /juHwIj/?
> > the type-5 suffixes
>> don't indicate the part-of-sentence (whether subject, object or
>> header). they indicate the _case_ (that's why i would like to call
>> them case tags). a locative (a noun with a locative case tag) can be
>> the object (part-of-sentence) of a verb, or it can be in the header.
>> we could also say that a focus (a noun with a focus case tag) can be
>> the subject (part-of-sentence) of a to-be-verb. and so on.
>> btw, i think case tags carry semantics, as the cases they form are
>> linked with the semantics of the verb.
well, seemingly i have already said all this, almostly.
>A rose by any other name. Personally, I see "subject," "object," and
>"header" as the cases of Klingon nouns. A locative noun, for instance, is
>usually a header, rarely an object, and virtually never a subject (we've
>never seen one as a subject). A reason noun is virtually always a header,
>and almost never a subject or object (we've never seen any of these,
>either). A topic/emphasis noun is rarely a header, often a subject, and
>often an object.
so if there are locative nouns and reason nouns, what is the
difference between them? what determine the words "locative" and
"reason" in the terms "locative noun" and "reason noun". how do you
call this?
> > has there been a consent on this topic? :)
>
>We'd need an actual Klingon linguist, or at least a report from Marc Okrand,
>to agree on something. Until then, everybody has his own pet theories.
why do we need to wait for an authority before we come to a consent?
when MO is willing to give us a more detailed grammar description,
then we can still abandon our consent.
> > i would still like to distinguish between cases and
>> parts-of-sentence, so i still would like to see /'e'/ as a case tag.
>
>If you could say why, what utility it would have, we might be able to work
>out a terminology to express the ideas you want. You just seem to be giving
>things new names, but I for one haven't learned your names for things.
what names for things do you mean?
the sence of all this is to have the ability to talk about klingon
grammar. what for? in order to ask and answer questions about klingon
grammar. what for? in order to learn klingon. if you have already
learned klingon, then it's not your problem, possibly, but i'm still
learning it, and others are learning it, too. and maybe they can
learn klingon more easily when they have names for the little
differences in the klingon grammar, that they have to distinguish,
but that they don't have names for yet.
tulwI',
sts.