tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 22 01:22:39 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'


----------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: "d'Armond Speers"<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:12:12 -0600

>
>>lab Holtej 'utlh:
>>
>>>>>SuStelvo':
>>>>>
>>>>>>A rose by any other name.  Personally, I see "subject," "object," and
>>>>>>"header" as the cases of Klingon nouns.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see these as cases, so much as grammatical roles.  Unless you 
>>>>>subscribe to the theory that (a) all nouns are marked for case, even
if 
>>>>>it's not overt; and (b) Klingon is like human languages in this
regard, 
>>>>>there's no evidence that Klingon uses case.
>>>>
>>>>i subscribe, i subscribe! :)
>>>
>>>To which part?  Both?  I'd object to (b) on the grounds that Klingon is, 
>>>by definition, non-human; we shouldn't adopt (theoretical) principles of 
>>>human languages for Klingon without evidence.  My point was that 
>>>distinctions like "subject" and "object" are grammatical roles.  Their 
>>>role in the sentence is determined by syntax (word order), not
morphology 
>>>(case marking).  Furthermore, (overt) case marking isn't even an option 
>>>(though we can talk about {-vaD} for indirect objects).
>>
>>i see klingon as a human language. if we can learn it, and children can 
>>learn it, then it is a human language.
>
>That's like saying that French is a Chinese language because Chinese
people 
>can learn it.  Klingon is not human.  And my point in saying this is that
we 
>can't assume Klingon works a certain way simply because human languages do.
>
>There are certain assumptions we make in playing this game of learning 
>Klingon.  There's this context, you see, in which, far away, there are
these 
>aliens called "Klingons."  They're not from Earth, not human.  We're just 
>learning their language.  If we don't agree on these simple assumptions, 
>we're certain not to agree on conclusions you reach by violating them.
>
>>let me ask this: do i understand it right that "overt" case marking means 
>>there is a case, but we don't mark it?
>
>Sorry, I could have chosen a clearer word.  "Overt" means "visible."  
>"Non-overt" means "not visible, but present."
>
>>i wanted to subscribe to
>>1) klingon is a human language
>>2) all nouns have a case, whether marked or not
>
>I reject your (1) outright.  Klingon is a Klingon language, not a Terran 
>one.
>

I disagree. Klingon may have been created to fit the role of an alien
language for a series of movies and TV shows, but it was still created by a
human, for the benefit of humans, so, by definition, it is a human language.

>
>>>Let me ask it another way.  If you claim a non-overt case system for 
>>>Klingon nouns, what does this buy you?
>>
>>i don't know the exact meaning of "non-overt".
>>
>>maybe i just want to distinguish the case of a noun (i mean the way that
a 
>>noun is introduced, as a location, as a reason, as a beneficary and so
on) 
>>from the role that a noun has for a verb. a verb needs subject and
object, 
>>and this together needs a header.
>
>"Needs" is too strong, but I know what you mean.
>
>>there are no subject-object-header markers, as these rules are determined 
>>by the syntax of the language.
>
>But for the "cases" you describe (location, reason, beneficiary), there
are 
>syntactic markers ({-Daq}, {-mo'}, {-vaD}).
>
>>a noun keeps his case independently from his role in the sentence or in
the 
>>verb structure.
>>there is one sentence role: the header.
>>there are two verb rules: subject and object.
>>the nouns that are used in the header, in the subject and in the object 
>>slot have cases, they are locatives, beneficaries and so on. this 
>>difference exists.
>
>I am often easily confused by the use of terms like "case" and "role," 
>because I'm a linguist and these words have specific meaning to me. 
Rather 
>than go down that road, I'm going to assume you're using these words in a 
>novel way, and not try to interpret your post based upon their technical 
>meanings (which your usage seems inconsistent with).
>
>So, you say verbs have "roles," which are "subject" and "object", and
nouns 
>can be identified as these roles by their position in the sentence.
>
>A sentence has a "role," which is "header," and nouns can be identified as 
>this role by their position in the sentence.
>
>In the header position, nouns have "cases," which include location,
reason, 
>beneficiary.  These are identified by syntactic markers.
>
>You also want to say that nouns in the "subject" and "object" roles can
have 
>cases.
>
>How am I doing so far?
>
>Now, in this framework [1], my question is this: why do you want to claim 
>that nouns in "subject" and "object" roles can have cases?  They're not 
>marked for case in the same way that nouns in the header are (by syntactic 
>markers).  So if they're not marked for case, what is the benefit of
claming 
>that they do have case?
>
>[1] I say "in this framework," because we've given special definitions to 
>the words "role" and "case" that are specific to Klingon, for the purpose
of 
>this discussion.  If you say that subject nouns have case because that's
the 
>way human languages work, now you're using a different definition of case 
>that doesn't apply here.
>
>>tulwI',
>>sts.
>
>--Holtej 'utlh
>
>--
>d'Armond Speers, Ph.D.
>[email protected]


jIlengnIS
Se'noj

_____________________________________________
Free email with personality! Over 200 domains!
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

Back to archive top level