tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 31 13:18:52 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: intuition and grammar (was Re: Ditransitive reflexives)

Tracy Canfield (toastrix@gmail.com)



So far as is known, -chuq can only be used with direct objects, not indirect
objects - so sayeth the experts.  That was one of the possibilities that I
asked about.  The Canon Master actually pulled up every known example of
-chuq (and -'egh) for me.
Also, I'm assuming from your e-mail address that you have a background in
Finnish - is that correct?

2009/10/31 Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>

> Thanks!
>
> But your example is actually reciprocal, not reflexive, and would be
> rendered in Klingon by -chuq, no?
>
> I do see the problem now, though, since you're using a verb with a
> marker that specifies no object, but including an object...  One
> solution that would seemingly fit within the confines of the grammar
> outlined by Okrand would be to mark the "chocolate" with a topic
> marker:
>
> yuch'e' nobchuqpu'
> "As for the chocolate, they gave (it) to each other"
>
> Perhaps not exactly grammatically correct, but it certainly gets the
> meaning across, and doesn't invent any new grammar...
>
> Actually...  Okay, according to the addendum, the (6.8, Indirect
> Objects), the recipient of an action is an oblique (marked with -vaD,
> and not indicated on the verb).  Thus, in a ditransitive like the
> above, the recipient ought not be marked on the verb.  It is the
> givers and the chocolate that ought to be marked...  Which means the
> ditransitive ought to be:
>
> chaHvaD yuch lunobpu'
>
> Which then, of course, is ambiguous between "They gave them chocolate"
> and "They gave themselves chocolate."
>
> Yes, starting to see the problem now....
>
> Chris
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:56, Tracy Canfield <toastrix@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wouldn't say all the English examples are idiomatic - "They gave each
> > other chocolate" is literal, and potentially a problem if you translate
> it
> > with -vaD.
> > I'll send Chris an off-list catch-up.
> >
> > 2009/10/31 Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
> >
> >> I missed the first part of this discussion because I just joined the
> >> list (hello, btw!), but I'm not sure what the issue is here...  In
> >> English, all of the examples of ditransitive reflexives are
> >> essentially idiomatic (e.g., "I gave myself some time off" is really
> >> "I took some time off").  Likewise, something like "I bought myself a
> >> knife" is equal to "I bought a knife for myself," which would be
> >> easily rendered in Klingon, I believe (my first attempt at a Klingon
> >> sentence, please be nice!), as
> >>
> >> jIHvaD taj vIje'pu'
> >>
> >> The only place I can think of where a ditransitive wouldn't have a
> >> non-literal meaning would be a slave buying one's self from one's
> >> owner, a rather marginal situation...
> >>
> >> So, can I ask what the original question was regarding?  Namely, what
> >> was trying to be said? (Feel free to email me directly if you don't
> >> want to spam the list with repeat stuff...)
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:10, Doq <doq@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >> > A second issue is that if we change the language too much, we
> >> > essentially create a dialect that someone else who studied Okrand's
> >> > materials would not understand. The Klingon Institute was not created
> >> > in order to create or foster non-standard dialects of the Klingon
> >> > language.
> >> >
> >> > Doq
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 31, 2009, at 1:34 PM, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ja'pu' lay'tel SIvten:
> >> >>> It's safer to walk around a hole than to jump in. We don't know how
> >> >>> deep the
> >> >>> holes are, and they're difficult to illuminate.
> >> >>
> >> >> ja' clpachucki@comcast.net:
> >> >>> Yes, but if there's a problem, we need to fix it.  It would only be
> >> >>> the smart, right, and beneficial thing to do.  Fill the hole!
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be the presumptive and arrogant thing to do.
> >> >>
> >> >> We're just studying and using this language.  We lack the authority
> >> >> to change or add to its grammar.  In the fantasy context of Klingon
> >> >> being the language spoken by real Klingons, we don't have any
> >> >> information on what to fill the holes with.  We do have information
> >> >> telling us that some holes are true gaps in the language and not just
> >> >> gaps in our knowledge.
> >> >>
> >> >> motlh qay'be' SengHey.  Sengbe'.  qaD neH.  Hol yItI'Qo'.  Hol
> >> >> yIlo'qu'.
> >> >>
> >> >> -- ghunchu'wI'
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>






Back to archive top level