tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 17 20:53:02 2008

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Syntax, semantics

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Terrence Donnelly wrote:
> --- On Wed, 9/17/08, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> I think it would help the grammatical discussion of -moH if we
>> clarified whether we were talking about syntax or semantics, and 
>> whether we're sure what's what.
> 
> Using your terms, how do you interpret the transform {quH qaw worIv}
> -> {worIvvaD quH qawmoH Ha'quj}?

First of all, notice your assumption: that one sentence has been 
transformed into another, as opposed to building a new sentence with its 
own parts. Is "The ball was thrown by me" simply a transformation of "I 
threw the ball," or is it a sentence in its own right? The English 
active and passive voices have the same disconnect with syntax and 
semantics that the Klingon {-moH} sentence seems to have. By assuming 
that one is a changed form of the other, you're forcing a specific 
grammatical analysis upon the sentence.

Second, I didn't supply answers with my previous post, only some 
definitions and some questions. I specifically did NOT attempt to 
definitively analyze the semantics of {mughojmoH SoS}, and I will not do 
so for the Skybox example, either. I'll leave that to others. (As I 
said, interpretations of this are the source of the contention.)

I will say this: I don't believe that every time a Klingon utters a 
causation sentence he builds a non-causation sentence in his head and 
then twists the nouns around after adding the suffix. Not any more than 
I think that an English speaker builds "I threw the ball" before 
twisting it around into "The ball was thrown by me" (and then having his 
English teacher tell him to stop using the passive voice).

-- 
SuStel
Stardate 8715.0

Back to archive top level