tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 16 22:28:34 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Positioning for emphasis

QeS 'utlh ([email protected])



jIjatlhpu':
>Although we have no canon examples of {-'e'}-subject fronting, I  don't see 
>why this shift in position could occur with objects but  not with subjects.

mujang ghunchu'wI', ja':
>You're proposing that the "adverbials can come after a topic-marked  
>object" rule is really a "topic-marked objects can come at the front  of a 
>sentence" rule,

Yes, that's essentially it, especially since on the same page Okrand talks 
about the possibility of adverbs coming after other classes of header 
(namely, time- and place-stamps).

>and trying to extend that to apply to topic-marked subjects.

I can understand how others would disagree, and Qov has justly pointed out 
to me the weakness of arguing a postulation on the basis of another 
postulation.

>I see two reasons why such front-shifting wouldn't apply to subjcts:
>1. Subjects come after the verb, not before.

That's true, but then, in TKD it also said that adverbs (except for {neH} 
and {jay'}) come before the main OVS sentence unit. On top of that, I view 
the sentence {puq'e' yaS qIp} as still having a subject in the main clause 
(i.e. in addition to the header), represented by the zero pronominal prefix. 
In the plural, I argue it would be {puqpu''e' yaS luqIp}. {puq'e'} is 
additional, emphasised subject information. In truth, it isn't the 
grammatical subject. It's the semantic subject, but not the grammatical one.

Aside from which, your argument is slightly circular. It's tautological to 
suggest that subjects wouldn't be fronted because they come after the verb, 
unless you're suggesting that the verb represents a major syntactic division 
in the sentence across which words can't move - that there's a preverbal, a 
verbal, and a postverbal (= subject) unit in Klingon grammar, through which 
words don't migrate. Is that what you mean?

>2. We don't even know that such front-shifting does apply to  objects.  
>Your proposal is the first time I've heard it suggested.

That's very surprising. I could have sworn I'd heard it on the list... In 
any case, I still believe that this explanation better reconciles the 
position of the body of TKD with the contradictory position of the addendum 
on the position of adverbs. But it's only a proposal, and I won't force it 
on anyone.

Out of interest, what are people's views on said proposal (forgetting 
subject-fronting for a moment)? If there's counter-canon, or if people 
disagree, I'd like to hear thoughts.

jIja'taH:
>No Klingon would ever read it like that, whether punctuated or not,  
>because of the rule prohibiting type 5 suffixes on the first noun  of a 
>noun-noun construction.

mujangtaH ghunchu'wI', ja':
>I have some experience actually speaking Klingon with people in  casual 
>conversation, and grammatical perfection in such situations is  
>unimportant.

Duj law' DachIjta' net Honbe'.

>There are certain nongrammatical tendencies that seem  to come out with 
>some regularity; among them are unintentional  dropping of the -chugh 
>suffix, putting an aspect suffix on the second  verb of a 
>sentence-as-object construction or a verb with the -jaj  suffix...and 
>putting a topic marker on the first noun of a noun-noun.
>I recognize the growing prevalence of people tossing a topic noun at  the 
>front of a sentence, but I'll continue to be a pedantic  curmudgeon about 
>insisting that subjects belong at the end.

luq.

QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language 
Institute


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement: Search for local singles online at Lavalife 
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D30290&_t=764581033&_r=email_taglines_Search&_m=EXT






Back to archive top level