tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 31 13:27:53 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)

Christopher Doty ([email protected]) 

Ya, it seems to me like it may be a case of a lexical gap: there is no
means of indicating that a subject and an object are coreferential.
Or else cases such as these are simply ambiguous--not totally unheard
of...

I am from the States, but was an exchange student in Finland, where I
gained some background in Finnish, although not as much as I would
have liked.

Chris

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 13:17, Tracy Canfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]>
>
>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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' [email protected]:
>> >> >>> 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