tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 11 12:14:12 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Headers. Yet again.
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Headers. Yet again.
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:13:55 GMT
As much as I enjoy the peace that has slowly come between myself and SuStel and
as much as I do not look forward to engaging in dispute about this again, I
feel compelled to answer and think that maybe, just maybe, I have something
possibly insightful to add to this long-standing, unresolved argument.
> From: <[email protected]>
> > Since all of the type 5 noun suffixes except -'e' must come before the
> basic
> > sentence, not just locatives must come before the basic sentence, the
> > contrived appellation "header" may be just accurate enough.
>
> This is the basic misunderstanding that persists for some odd reason. THE
> KLINGON DICTIONARY does not say that nouns with Type 5 suffixes come at the
> beginning of a sentence. It says (p. 60):
>
> "Any noun in the sentence indicating something other than subject or object
> comes first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a Type 5
> noun suffix . . . ."
SuStel, you see this as the imprecise rule that it is, with an obvious loophole
built into it. My issue here is that I think maybe you are missing the point as
to exactly what loophole is being built here. There's something here that is so
obvious, I think you overlook it, seeking something that is possible, but never
supported anywhere in canon.
The statement sounds like it was going to say, "All nouns other than subject or
object have a Type 5 noun suffix and go before the object noun," but Okrand
pulled back to allow exceptions, using the word "usually". In this, I think you
are perfectly right.
Meanwhile, I think the loophole he created here was so that he could use time-
stamp related nouns like {Hu'} and {po} which are not subject or object and go
before the object noun, but they don't have a Type 5 noun suffix. Also, he
wanted to make room for all those exceptions with {-'e'}.
I don't see this as anything close to an argument for using Type 5 noun
suffixed nouns anywhere but before the object noun (except for the noted
exceptions marking {-'e'} as a very exceptional noun suffix among Type 5s). You
do obviously believe that this DOES imply that a loophole does exist to allow
Type 5 (other than {-'e'} marked nouns to go somewhere other than before the
object noun.
After all these years, Okrand hasn't used the loophole you believe he has put
in here. He has many times used the loophole that I see this indicating.
Add that Okrand says that usage is more important than the rules. In his
imaginary universe where this language actually belongs to a race of beings,
the rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. Your argument is totally based
upon these rules being prescriptive, since no examples exist for this rule to
describe the behavior you continue to wait for to vindicate your position.
The rules are tools to help outsiders figure out how to say stuff. After
they've learned the rules and gotten practice working with them, they can then
watch "official" usage and move on, rather than always sit, staring at the
rules, evaluating everything according to the rules.
This doesn't mean that we can run off and violate the rules in new and
interesting ways. It does, however, mean that OKRAND can run off and violate
the rules in new and interesting ways, (like with transitive verbs using {-
moH}) and when he does so, we try to figure out the new DESCRIPTIVE rules to
explain why the usage is the way it is.
As soon as I see any canon that makes more that the described exceptional uses
of {-'e'} which violate the so-far-unviolated trend in canon to ALWAYS put any
noun with a Type 5 noun suffix on it (except sometimes {-'e'}) before the
object noun, I think it is really okay to say that as a description of how the
grammar has always worked in canon, any noun with Type 5 noun suffix (except
sometimes {-'e'} as described in TKD) always goes before the object noun.
You have great talent with the language. You are definitely more conversational
with it than I am. {DaHjaj po} was brilliant, as was the poem about the old
lady who swallowed the bug. I totally lack your poetic skills with the
language. I very much appreciate your contributions as a fellow matlh jupna'.
Meanwhile, this fixation on a likely non-existant loophole in what really does
appear to be a rule that says all Type 5 marked nouns (except {-'e'}) go before
the object noun is not, in my useless opinion, a contribution. It's just
stubbornness. You've hung your national flag on this grammatical turf and
you'll defend it to the death. It defies rationality, even as it insists that
it is a logical argument. It has clearly become an ego thing. I can say that
because I obviously have ego stuff going on as well, and I invite others to
point out to me when I'm letting my ego get in the way of clarity. I will
listen to that feedback and consider it heavily (even though I may very well
simply continue to disagree with the person offering it).
I leave your comments unedited in order to fully represent your contrary
opinion.
> Use basic logic. If most people like chocolate and I am a person, it does
> not follow that I must like chocolate. If we are using the rules presented
> by TKD, then when something has a Type 5 noun suffix on it, there is no rule
> stating that it must come before the object noun. If that noun with the
> Type 5 suffix is indicating something other than subject or object, THAT
> invokes the quoted rule to put it in front of the OVS structure. Not all
> nouns with Type 5 suffixes are something other than subject or object; your
> assertion above is incorrect.
[Adverbial stuff deleted because I completely agree with it.]
> SuStel
> Stardate 2442.4
Will