tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 24 09:58:49 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'
>Clipped for brevity.
>
>tulwI'vo':
>
>>>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).
>>
>>if i were a klingon linguist, i wouldn't ask all these stupid questions.
>>sorry for having confused you.
>
>You don't have to apologize, this is one of the stated purposes for
>this discussion group. And the questions aren't stupid. If it
>furthers your interest in and understanding of Klingon, then it's
>worth it. And hey, I can always learn something new too.
Holtej,
my interest and understanding increasing indeed. but when i try to
express myself about how i understand it, then a neverending story
begins.
i think i should stop to try to explain at any cost what i'm thinking.
>I must accept that you and I mean different things by "human"
>languages. You seem to be using this term to mean that a human can
>speak it. I've made my point about what a "natural human" language
>is in other posts, so I won't repeat it here. I am concerned that
>using the term in this way is misleading. You seem aware of the
>danger of making assumptions about how Klingon works on this basis,
>and I can only hope that others that were not a part of this
>discussion do not fall into that trap if they hear you describe
>Klingon this way.
mkay!
>>you see, in this framework, in the header position, nouns have
>>cases which include location, so nouns with /-Daq/. but such a noun
>>can be the object of a verb. so the object of a verb has a case, or
>>can have one.
>>
>>how am i doing so far? :)
>
>Okay, you're right: there's a special circumstance with verbs of
>motion where they take an object marked for location with {-Daq}.
>So far, we've identified the following cases: location, reason,
>beneficiary, and time-stamp. One of these occurs as an object in a
>special circumstance. The other three, as far as we know, cannot
>occur in the object role, and none of them, as far as we know, can
>occur in the subject role. (There's one counter-example with {-Daq}
>that I can't remember right now.)
and don't forget that also nouns with the type 5 suffix /-'e'/ can be
subject or object.
>So, if we accept that they can occur in these positions, the
>conditions under which they can are extremely circumscribed. The
>general observation is that they cannot.
the general observation is that nouns with type 5 suffixes are in the
header and that nouns without type 5 suffixes are subject or object.
the exceptions of this observations are that there are nouns that go
into the header without having a type 5 suffix (time-stamps, for
example) and that there are nouns that have type 5 suffixes that are
subject or object. both sides are general observations and have
exceptions.
>So, now back to my original question. If we accept that nouns in
>subject or object role can have one of these cases, but that they
>are not marked as such, then what is the point of claiming they have
>case?
there is no sence as long as you say that there is a general
observation and that there are exceptions.
my point is: when there are exceptions, what worth is a general observation?
in order to fix this mixmax of general observations and exceptions, i
like to see it as "cases of nouns" and "slots/roles of a verb"
(subject, object) and "slot/role of a sentence" (header).
and/or maybe i don't understand your (original) question. you talk
about the general observation that subjects and objects don't have
type 5 suffixes? do you think that i think that an object of a verb
has an object case without a type 5 suffix? (well, that's not my
opinion.)
>You might say something like {rIn DaHjaj}, in which a noun that
>identifies a time is in the subject role. I would assert that this
>is not a time-stamp. It doesn't identify the time at which the
>action of the sentence occurs. I could extend this to say {wa'leS
>rIn DaHjaj}, and now the explicit (overt) time-stamp is different
>than the subject. The subject isn't a time-stamp, it's just a
>regular noun. This seems to me to argue against your claim that the
>subject is marked for one of your cases.
hm. no.
neither do i think that "DaHjaj" in the sentence /rIn DaHjaj/ is a
time-stamp. it's just a noun. the subject isn't marked, as usual. i
say that /wa'leS/ in /wa'leS rIn DaHjaj/ isn't marked, although it is
a time-stamp.
>Let me be a little more explicit about what I'm asking and why I'm
>asking it. We're talking here about the rules of how this language
>works. We don't have to add "case" and "role" to the list if rules
>in order to understand or describe Klingon grammar. These are
>additional concepts. If you're going to add additional concepts to
>the grammar, there has to be a well-motivated reason for it.
my reason is that i don't like exceptions and general observations. i
would have liked to explain sentences with "role" and "case" instead
of general observations and exceptions. this isn't well-motivated,
you may say, but for me it is.
>For example, in a field of linguistic inquiry called "case theory,"
>there's a rule called the Case Filter: "Every NP must be assigned
>case." This is used to explain why sentence such as (a) are
>ungrammatical and (b) are grammatical:
>
>(a) * Him to attack Bill would be illegal.
>(b) For him to attack Bill would be illegal.
>
>(The asterisk * indicates the sentence is ungrammatical.) In (a),
>the pronoun "him" does not get case, because the verb lacks tense.
>In (b), the pronoun "him" gets case from the preposition "for."
i don't understand neither a) nor b). sorry. does it mean that "he"
thinks that it would be illegal to attack bill?
and i think that "him" has a case. it's accusative or dative.
>Now, switching back to Klingon. You're proposing a new rule, that
>says that all nouns have a case (noting, with apologies, that this
>is different that the example from case theory above). In the
>subject and (usually) object positions, this is unmarked
>(non-overt). My question is, how does this expand the explanatory
>power of our Klingon grammar? What is it about how Klingon works
>that you can explain better now, in terms of case as we've defined
>it, that you couldn't explain before?
the general observation is that subject and object nouns in klingon
don't have markings for their cases, i.e. type 5 suffixes (exceptions
are object nouns with /-Daq/ and subject nouns with /-'e'/).
(nota bene that i _don't_ claim that there is a "subject case" nor an
"object case" but only nouns in a subject position (subject role) or
in an object position (object role). the case they have, is an other
story.)
i think it is more complex to describe and explain a language with
"general observations and their exceptions" than with "observations".
"general observations and their exceptions":
1. general observations:
-the subject nouns and object nouns don't have type 5 suffixes.
-the header nouns have type 5 suffixes.
(conclusion: type 5 suffixes are header suffixes.)
2. exceptions:
-there are subject nouns and object nouns with type 5 suffixes
(/-Daq/ or /-'e'/).
-there are header nouns that don't have type 5 suffixes (time-stamp).
(confusion: header suffixes can be subject suffixes and object
suffixes, and some header nouns don't have header suffixes.)
"observations"
-a verb can have two noun phrases: subject noun phrase, object noun phrase
-a verb together with its subject and object can have several noun
phrases: header noun phrase
-every noun has a case: nominative, accusative, time-stamp, locative,
manner and so on
-there are no case-marks for nominative, accusative, manner or
time-stamp. so we don't know a priori, for instance, what case has
/batlh/ or /DaHjaj/, only the context (the position to the verb)
gives us this information.
my explanation doesn't have exceptions, as far as i see. and after
all: i like it the best! :)
applied to you example /wa'leS rIn DaHjaj/ we have:
"general observations and their exceptions:
-/wa'leS/ is a noun. it appears in the header without having a type 5
suffix (exception of the general observation that header nouns have
type 5 suffixes).
or:
-/DaHjaj/ is a time-stamp (i.e. a header noun) used in the subject position.
"observations"
-/wa'leS/ appears in the header position. it is a time-stamp. there
are no time-stamp type 5 suffixes.
-/DaHjaj/ appears in the subject position. it is a nominative. there
are no nominative type 5 suffixes.
>Now, here's my argument on the other side of the discussion. The
>types of case that you've identified (location, reason, beneficiary,
>and time-stamps) always occur in the "header" role (with the
>exception of location for verbs of motion). It doesn't seem to me
>that this exception is a powerful enough example to expand the
>possible occurrences of case to subject and object positions in
>general. And in fact, if you try to construct Klingon sentences
>this way, they are ungrammatical:
>
>* tlheD DujDaq
>* tlheD Dujmo'
>* tlheD DujvaD
>* tlheD Dujvo'
>* tlheD wa'Hu'
hm. first: don't forget about the type 5 suffix /-'e'/.
then, why should someone say all your *-sentences?
*the to the ship departs
*the because of the ship departs
*the for ship departs
*the from the ship departs
the only sentence that makes sence is "the yesterday departs".
>(For the {-mo'} example, this is grammatical if you understand it to
>mean {tlheD ghaH, Dujmo'}, but not if you assume that {Duj} is the
>subject of {tlheD}. For the {wa'Hu'} example, {wa'Hu'} cannot act
>as a time-stamp, as I showed above.)
when you say /tlheD ghaH, Dujmo'/ then /Dujmo'/ isn't in the subject
position. /ghaH/ is in the subject position. /Dujmo'/ is outside the
ovs-structure. this makes me think: how do you call the zone outside
the ovs-struture? "header" is in front of the ovs-structure. and what
comes after it?
>So, the evidence seems to suggest that the cases as you've defined
>them are restricted to the "header" role. And, though MO didn't use
>the words "header," "case" or "role," this is how TKD describes
>this. If you take the syntactic markers off, you're left with
>{tlheD Duj}, which does not include the connotations of location,
>reason, or beneficiary that you're arguing for. It doesn't seem
>likely to me that these are indeed assigned a case, but not marked a
>such.
>
>Based on this, I do not understand the justification for describing
>case in the way that you do. Show me where I went wrong. :)
:)
1. /-Daq/ nouns are not the only nouns that can be in the
ovs-structure. also nouns with /-'e'/ can be there.
2. not all cases make sence in the subject/object position.
3. /tlheD wa'Hu'/ is ok.
4. an observation is better than a general observation with exceptions.
5. i say that subject, object and header are positions in the
sentence; they are not cases.
tulwI',
sts.