tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 19 20:56:42 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Positioning for emphasis

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' SuStel:

> /Semantics/ and /syntax/ are two subfields of /grammar/.

The word "grammar" is more commonly reserved for sentence-level  
syntax and word-level morphology, things which can be described and  
analyzed without invoking specific meanings.  Your wider definition  
is used by some, but I fear denying the more restrictive use of the  
term will lead to many of your points being dismissed as irrelevant  
to the topic.  For example, speaking of "rules of semantics" seems  
nonsensical to me.  Semantics is about what makes sense, not what is  
permitted.

Grammar in this context refers to the rules by which words are  
produced and combined to form sentences.  That's what "positioning  
for emphasis" is about, is it not?

> When given a sentence like {puq'e' yaS qIp} it /is/ possible that  
> the child isn't doing the hitting — but I'd lay odds that he is.  
> Whether you want to call this a "subject" or not is irrelevant;  
> it's fairly obvious who is doing what in this sentence.
>
> 	I'm going to tell you something about a child. Ready for a story
> 	about a child? Here it is: He hit the officer.
>
> Who on earth wouldn't make the connection?

In English, the connection is very close.  Subjects come first, so  
there is a tight proximity between the initial topic and the subject  
of the sentence.

In Klingon, however, the connection is not close at all.  It's hard  
to turn my internal "feel" for the sentence into something that  
carries over into English, but I'll try:

   "As for the child, the officer is hit."

It's not so obvious this way, and I wouldn't blame someone in the  
least for failing to make the connection.

> Doq wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But not the only one! And before we had those, everyone was pretty
> convinced that you couldn't put them on subjects or objects.

I assume what you wrote here is the opposite of what you meant.   
Everyone who read The Klingon Dictionary would more likely have  
thought from the beginning that the topic-marking suffix *only* goes  
on subjects or objects.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level