tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 20 12:30:24 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq(pu'/mey)'e'

lab SuStel:

>  > 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.
>Okrand called /-'e'/ a topic marker, and his examples demonstrate focus, not
>topic.  He has used /-'e'/ as topic elsewhere, and the "to be" constructions
>can be interpreted as using topic.

btw, what does "topic" and "focus" mean to us? i thought that "topic" 
doesn't make any grammatical difference, and that "focus" means that 
the action that describes the word is somehow related to the focus 
(and that i would call a case, and therefore a change in the grammar 
of the sentence). but maybe i error the tkd terminology again.

but this this again may not be important. i wanted to say that the 
case of a noun doesn't determine the role that the noun has in the 
sentence, although there are roles that the noun will probably assume.

>  > >No, but I may not be using the same terminology as you.  The word "case"
>>  >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.
>Yes, but Okrand makes it clear that there is a place before the OVS part
>that contains other words.  It's not at all clear whether Klingon has case,
>on what level it would operate, and if it's a useful distinction.

ok. then he said that the header exists (but he didn't give a name).
and as for cases, let's find out whether they are useful.

>  > /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.
>"However"?  There is no however about it.  /juHwIjDaq/ is a locative noun.
>It's always a locative noun, whether it's in a sentence or not.  If case is
>the relation of nouns (and other words) to the formation of a sentence, and
>/juHwIjDaq/ is a locative noun regardless of whether it's in a sentence or
>not, then "locative" doesn't really appear to be a noun case, does it?

sorry, i should have said "anyway" instead of "however". "however" is 
a "false friend" for german english speakers.

i must think about your argumentation for a second...! case is not the relation of nouns and other words to the 
formation of a sentence. what is case? i think (i.e., the katanda 
grammar made me think) that when a noun-phrase is put into a case, 
there has been added some semantics that link the noun-phrase to the 
verb of the sentence. for example, (daring to assert that locative is 
a case), /juHwIjDaq/ is more or less equivivalent to "being at my 
home" or "going to my home". in the latter case :) i can say 
"homeward". and "homeward" is not a noun-phrase. it is something 
linked to an action that is directed "homeward". a case implies the 
realm of a sentence, in which that action is described. therefore, 
/juHwIj|Daq/ maybe definitely a locative noun, but it implies a 

>  > in the second sentence /juHwIj/ is the object of /vIlegh/. /juHwIj/,
>>  however, is a ... how do you call it? "accusative"?
>I call it a noun.  In that sentence I call it an object.  You might try to
>apply the word "accusative" to it, but why do this when you can call it an
>object?  The grammar of your two sentences is exactly the same.

what's the difference between noun and locative noun? what kind of 
noun is a noun? and in what differ these nouns? how do you call that?

>juHwIj vIghoS.
>juHwIjDaq vIghoS.
>These two sentences mean exactly the same thing.  How would case apply here?

/juHwIj/ and /juHwIjDaq/ differ. what is there difference?

>  > 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?
>Type 5 noun suffixes.

what do type 5 noun suffixes change?

>  > >We'd need an actual Klingon linguist, or at least a report from Marc
>>  >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.
>You  try getting everyone on this list to agree with a point of grammar
>without direct evidence from Marc Okrand, and then ask your question again.

the "evidence" mark ocrand gave us is the language. if he wouldn't 
have said that there is a part of a sentence that is not part of the 
ovs-structure, wouldn't you have invented the word "header" anyway 
"without direct evidence from marc okrand"?


Back to archive top level