Re: Headers. Yet again.

[willm@cstone.net]

> ja' charghwI':
..
> >Segh vagh mojaq <-mo'> ghajchugh DIp, reH *Header* DIp 'oHtaH. not chutHeyvam
> >wemlu'.
> >
> >chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?

jang ghunchu'wI':
> vIHonqu'be', 'ach pab chut 'oH 'e' vIQubbe'.  Hol wIleghbogh Del neH.  Hol
> SeHqu'be'. 

not choQoylaw'. not Hol SeH pab chut. Del neH.

*OVS* yIqel. ghIq wot mojaq <-jaj> yIqel. bIv'a'? pab chut 'oH'a' *OVS*'e'?

> ghaytan not chutqoqvam wem mu'tlhegh lI', 'ach wemlaH mu'tlhegh
> Dogh 'e' vIpIH.

qatlh bISaH? DunuQ'a' *OVS*? <-jaj>mo' *OVS* DalajQo' DaneH'a'?

> >Segh vagh mojaq <-vaD> ghajchugh DIp, reH *Header* DIp 'oHtaH. not chutHeyvam
> >wemlu'.
> >
> >chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
> 
> vIHonqu'be', 'ach pab chut 'oH 'e' vIQubbe'...

Dal vuDvam.

> >Segh vagh mojaq <-Daq> ghajchugh DIp, 'ej vIHmeH wot le' lo'be'lu'chugh, reH
> >*Header* DIp 'oHtaH.  not chutHeyvam wemlu'. vIHmeH wot le' lo'lu'DI', Segh
> >vagh mojaq <-Daq> ghajlaH *Direct Object*.
> >
> >chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
> 
> tlhoy Qatlh chutHeyvam.  tlhoS vIvoqlaHbe'.  'ej Hol wIleghbogh Del neH.
> Hol SeHbe'.

Hol SeHlaH pagh. Hol DellaH Hoch chut. reH chut choHlaH *MO*. <-jaj> yIqel.

> >QapmeH mojaq <-Daq> rur mojaq <-vo'>.
> >
> >chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
> 
> vIHonqu'be', 'ach...

Dal... bImul neH.

> >latlhmeyvam Dabe' mojaq <-'e'>. Dat narghlaH mojaq <-'e'> ghajbogh DIp'e'.
> >
> >chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
> 
> chut 'oHchugh, ramqu' chutHomvam.  pagh nuja'.

latlh DIp mojaq Segh vaghvo' pIm <-'e'>. ngoDvam Del chutvam. rambe'.

> >qatlh chutmeyHeyvam DIbuSHa'nIS? jISuv vIneHbe'. qavuvHa' vIneHbe'. qamoghmoH
> >vIneHbe'. meqlIj vIyajbe'. jImul vIneHbe'. vIt vIHub vIneH neH.
> 
> chutHeyvam vIbuSHa'be'.  vIbuSbe' neH.

bImulmeH bIDachu'.

> >Holna' wIbuSHa' DaneHlaw' 'ej pab Delbogh paq neH wInuD DaneHlaw'. taQ
> >HelIj, 'ach vIlaj. jatlhlu'chugh <<munej Dujvo'>> jIQoy 'ej jIghoHbe'taH
> >DaneHlaw'. chaq lugh. botbe' pab. Dap, 'ach bIvbe'. lughlaw' SoHvaD. [You, 
the
> >beneficiary, are apparently right.]
> 
> qayajmoHmeH, DIvI' Hol vIlo'nISlaw' 'e' yIlajneS.
> 
> It's a "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" thing.  The phrase is
> perfectly grammatical, but it is also perfectly nonsensical.  Similarly, I
> believe that <raS jatlhmoH quSvaD> breaks no rules of grammar, even while I
> think it is complete nonsense.  It's worse than <raS jatlhmoH quS> only in
> degree, not in essence.

The difference is that Type 5 noun suffixes GRAMMATICALLY indicate the 
syntactic meaning of the words in a way your English examples don't. When I say 
<wijitvaD>, you don't need to know what a wijit is to know that it is not the 
subject or object in the sentence. You know it is the indirect object 
or "beneficiary".

If I say <wijitDaq>, you don't need to know what a wijit is to know that it is 
not the subject of any sentence. It is also not the object of a sentence, 
unless the verb is a special verb of motion, which Okrand has spent an 
extraordinary number of examples and explanations to make clear to us why this 
exeption exists and how it works.

If I say <wijitmo'> you don't need to know what a wigit is to know that it is 
not the subject or object of a sentence. The Type 5 noun suffix tells you what 
function this word has in the sentence, and it is not subject or object. This 
is not just a matter of the meaning of the root word. The suffix TELLS you what 
the word is doing in the sentence. If you continue to insist otherwise, you are 
simply being irrational.

> It seems you refuse to accept any distinction between syntax and semantics,
> preferring to lump both of them under the "grammar" label. 

No. I'm simply recognizing that Okrand has called the Type 5 noun suffix a 
syntactic marker (check it out in TKD -- it's right there in the heading for 
that section) and you refuse to recognize that and instead insist that Type 5 
noun suffixes merely change the MEANING of the noun in such a way that it 
USUALLY affects the syntax, and in all examples we've seen now for over a 
decade, it has affected its syntax, but you are hedging your bets, insisting 
that Okrand didn't really mean it when he called them "syntatic markers", and 
what he REALLY meant was just "semantic modifiers that change the noun's 
meaning in such a way that it usually, but not necessarily indicates a 
syntactic function".

Why is it that you consider your inability to accept Okrand's term "syntactic 
marker" and all of his illustrations of what a syntactic marker does for a Type 
5 noun suffix to be somehow more valid than my observations about the behavior 
of nouns with type 5 suffixes that we've seen for over a decade now? Is your 
opinion simply inherantly more valuable than mine?

You also stubbornly insist that the rules of grammar need to control the 
language rather than simply describe it. You still haven't addressed the issue 
of "What about the OVS rule that the verb suffix {-jaj} breaks? Do we refuse to 
accept that rule because it doesn't control the language?"

Rules have exceptions. OVS has two exceptions. One relates to the verb suffix {-
jaj}. The other relates to comparatives. Maybe there are others. I don't care. 
It's still a rule. It doesn't control the language. I just describes it. It has 
exceptions. Maybe we'll find more exceptions in the future. That doesn't keep 
me up at night. I can handle that much chaos.

A new rule that is accurate according to all canon, having two conditional 
exceptions is not a bad thing. Several of Okrand's rules have as many 
exceptions. I'm sure some have more. Some of his rules are also arguably 
invalid because he has broken them without any indication of any reason the 
canon is exceptional to the rule.

Okrand didn't ever sign off on the rules of Klingon valid syllables described 
quite eloquently in HolQeD vol. 1 no. 1. The rules described there worked then. 
They work now. We often use them to help new Klingon students when they seek to 
make up a name for themselves. There are two known exceptions to these rules:

jan luq pIqarD
qIrq

We didn't throw those rules out yet. They don't control the language, but they 
really help you understand a part of how the language works. This is what rules 
have to offer us.

> I (and SuStel,
> I believe) would rather consider grammar to be the domain of syntax, with
> semantics and meaning being a separate category.  Grammar defines what
> sentences are legal, without having anything to say about what sentences
> are meaningful.

So, why do you think Okrand called the Type 5 noun suffix a syntactic marker? 
You have a personal interpretation of this suffix that claims that it is not a 
syntactic marker, but instead modifies the semantics.

And you manage to do that repeatedly with a straight face, quite self-
righteously. Impressive. You honestly believe that your personal theory about 
what a Type 5 noun suffix does is more valid than Okrand's sub-chapter heading 
in TKD. For years now. You've never even BEGUN to address this exceptional 
interpretation of TKD.
 
> To work with your beach analogy, it looks like you've noticed that nobody
> ever wears street shoes on the sand, and you want to use that observation
> to justify banning shoes on the sand entirely. 

You still have not heard me:

Nobody bans anything. The rules do not control the language. They are not 
prescriptive. They are descriptive. They describe what is normal in the 
language. When the language breaks the rules and becomes these exceptions 
become acceptable, exceptions to the rules are made, like {-jaj} and OVS.

If we were to not bother with a language and instead we were working on a code, 
then we could have prescriptive rules. When you encode and decode, you have to 
follow the rules. There are no exceptions.

Language is not code. Rules do not prescribe what is valid. They merely 
describe what is normal, and most of the time if something isn't normal, it's 
also not valid, but validity has more to do with the ability to carry meaning 
than it does the precision of its following the rules.

"I before E except after C, and a few other weird words."

We try to find descriptions of patterns that can help us generally write better 
stuff. That's all rules can do for us. I certainly can't see how your 
interesting interpretation of the term "syntactic marker" is less threatening 
to the language than my proposal that with certain explicit exceptions, Type 5 
noun suffixes never appear on subjects or objects in valid Klingon sentences. I 
don't see your interest in restricting me from making that accurate observation 
as being any less "restrictive" than you are accusing me of being, since I'm 
apparently trying to restrict people from using Type 5 noun suffixes on 
subjects and objects, which you object to.

> Never mind that it doesn't
> make sense to do it in the first place; you want to make it illegal.  I
> think that's excessive.  In my opinion, it's like passing a law saying
> automobiles are not permitted to drive under the ice of a frozen lake,
> because you have never seen them there, you never expect to see them there,
> and you somehow think it's an important traffic rule that should be
> impressed on new student drivers.

If the rule "OVS" was never explicitly stated, and we'd seen the pattern show 
up for years, would you so vociferously object were I to suggest it?
 
> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI'