tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 19 19:00:54 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Positioning for emphasis
There is no such thing as a "semantic subject". The word "subject" is
a grammatical term. It describes a grammatical role. There is no
semantic role in a sentence. The semantics of a word have to do with
the meaning of the word, not its grammatical role in a particular
sentence.
Also, I've seen use of the term "semantic meaning" used in this
rather heated argument. That's redundant.
There's more heat here than light.
Consider that in Klingon, there are nouns, verbs and "everything
else" (a.k.a. chuvmey). Similarly, nouns are either subjects,
objects, or "everything else". This second type of "everything else"
is a head noun.
The noun suffix {-'e'} is exceptional, in that it is the one Type 5
for which we've got LOTS of examples of its use on subjects and
objects. It's okay to use it on a subject or an object in place.
Everyone will understand you if you do that. Meanwhile, putting
{-'e'} on a head noun and expecting everyone to intuit that you mean
for that word to function as the subject is, well, not something we
have a lot of examples to go by, and frankly, it's a challenge for
people to understand what you are trying to say. People who are
really good at this stuff are telling you that, and you are ignoring
them.
Good examples of head nouns are easy to understand. Bad ones aren't.
The point of language is to communicate. If you experiment with a
particular sentence and most people don't understand you, that's
okay. It's a good thing to experiment, and well, some experiments
fail. That's why they're called "experiments". The whole point of an
experiment is to learn from it. It's not advisable to get too
attached to the success of any specific experiment.
I like nut brown ale. Troegs is my favorite. I had one with dinner.
My wife likes them, too, but she couldn't finish hers, so I did.
I like speaking Klingon, but I don't like thinking about it all that
much. It makes my head hurt.
I'm with ghunchu'wI' on this one. Lighten up. Be happy. Speak Klingon.
We don't have to fight about this stuff. There's really nothing to
prove here. Just speak.
If anyone is offended by what I just said, I apologize, and I hope
they just go out and try a Troeg's nut brown ale and enjoy their
evening. No harm intended.
It's the one with the boot print on the logo. I should know the
actual name of the beer, but, well, for all its blessings, beer does
not improve one's memory. It's got the word "Trail" in it, I think.
wej tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhta'. vaj...
tlhoy maghoHDI', QIntetlhvam vItIvbe' 'ej jIjeS 'e' vImev vIneH.
Do'Ha', tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHmo', vIjatlh vIneHtaH, 'ej naDev ghom
Hoch jatlhwI'pu'. jIDachtaHchugh, jIja'eghlaH neH. jIja'eghtaHghach
vItIvbe'bej.
jIDal. jajwIj DajmoH qechmeyraj. tlhIngan mu'tlheghmeyraj vItIvbej.
roD tlhIngan jatlhwI'pu' vIqIHbe' 'ej vIghombe'. SepwIjDaq wa'
jatlhwI' neH tu'lu': jIH. qep'a' vIjeSlaHbe'. qepHommey vIjeSlaHbe'.
taQ yInwIj. jIQIjqangbe'.
vaj naDev neH tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaH, 'ej jIghoH vIneHbe'.
Doq
On Sep 19, 2007, at 3:55 AM, QeS 'utlh wrote:
>
> jIja'pu':
>> In truth, it isn't the grammatical subject. It's the semantic
>> subject, but
>> not the grammatical one.
>
> mujang ghunchu'wI', ja':
>> Grammar is what lets semantic roles be expressed in a comprehensible
>> sentence.
>
> Yes, but semantic roles do not always have a one-to-one correlation
> with grammatical roles.
>
>> If it's the subject, it should be marked as the subject.
>
> Okay, I'll argue on a different tack: in the English sentence "I
> hit myself", I am simultaneously the semantic subject and object of
> the sentence. I'm the only one involved. But the *grammatical*
> subject is "I", and the grammatical object is "myself".
>
> In the same way, in {puq'e' yaS qIp}, I argue that the child can
> simultaneously be the semantic subject and topic (although it
> doesn't have to be). But the *grammatical* subject is the zero
> pronominal prefix of the verb, and the grammatical topic is the
> header {puq'e'}. However, I don't see any reason why the pronominal
> prefix of the verb {qIp} couldn't have the topic as its antecedent,
> especially as the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes can't license
> any argument outside the OVS core of the sentence (and, for that
> matter, they can't access the direct object either).
>
>> In Klingon, that's done by putting it after the verb.
>
> You'll get no argument from me there. I don't interpret {puq'e' yaS
> qIp} as being fundamentally Subject-Object-Verb, though; I see it
> as Header-Object-Verb with the subject expressed as the pronominal
> prefix and referring to the same entity as the header does, in the
> same way as I don't see why {ghaHvaD cheng qIp} couldn't mean "he
> hit Chang for his (Chang's) benefit".
>
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Make shopping exciting. Find what you want @ www.eBay.com.au
> http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Frover%2Eebay%2Ecom%
> 2Frover%2F1%2F705%2D10129%2D5668%2D323%2F4%2F%3Fid%
> 3D6&_t=763807330&_r=email_taglines_EBAY&_m=EXT
>