[102543] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Mon Nov 23 10:49:58 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 01:49:41 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmM3yDPT-bR4SA2brsUWXrzCeEztPN7gJ=Ow5DQw3LyTAw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============6258986676931145382==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_01fe0ca2-a9e0-4868-a1af-198e548a8e5e_"
--_01fe0ca2-a9e0-4868-a1af-198e548a8e5e_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jIjatlhpu' jIH:
> I know of none either=2C and I'd make substantial bets that we will never=
=2C
> ever see that. Agreement prefixes have the function of signalling the
> relationships of the nouns in the sentence to the verb and to each other=
=2C
(poD vay')
mujang De'vID=2C jatlh:
> Okay. What about {quv'e' maja'chuq} and {Qu'maj'e' maqawchuqmoH}?
> Now {quv} and {Qu'maj} have a function in their respective sentences.
Yes=2C=0A=
with {-'e'} my issues with the pronominal prefixes simply disappear=2C =0A=
and the first one is fine: "as for honour=2C we confer". On the =0A=
{Qu'maj'e'} example=2C though=2C to me the sense is somewhat different. =0A=
{Qu'maj'e' maqawchuqmoH} actually sounds more like "It's our mission to =0A=
make each other remember". (Literally=2C it's "as for our mission=2C we mak=
e=0A=
each other remember"=3B I've just expressed it more idiomatically here=2C =
=0A=
in the way that I'd understand that utterance.)
jIjatlhqa'pu':
> In terms of the two sentences given by De'vID: no=2C I would say that bot=
h of
> these are categorically impossible. Both of them would require the
> pronominal prefix {wI-}=2C at least.
jangqa' je De'vID=2C jatlh:
> From TKD 4.2.1: This suffix is used only with plural subjects. It is
> translated "each other" or "one another". The prefix set indicating
> "no object" is also used when this suffix is used.
net Sov. That's why I went on to give further explanations and interpretati=
ons and didn't just leave that statement hanging.
taH:
> It's not possible to use {wI-} with {-chuq}=2C at least if we take TKD
> at its word.
That=0A=
takes TKD 4.2.1 not only at its word=2C but also in isolation and without=
=0A=
additional and appropriate context. What about {-moH}? It's a tool =0A=
specifically for increasing the count of actants by one=2C and for =0A=
monovalent verbs=2C that means adding an object. Whatever you take =0A=
{wIqawchuqmoH} to mean=2C I contend that it is absolutely grammatical. =0A=
{-chuq} deletes the object of the basic bivalent verb {qaw}. {-moH} adds=0A=
a new object to the newly-monovalent verb {qawchuq}. What's so =0A=
problematic about that?
jIjatlhqa'pu':
> We know from paq'batlh that {ja'chuq} has become lexified with the
> meaning "discuss" and can take an object: {quv HIja'chuqQo'} "do
> not discuss honour with me" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 19.12)=2C so {quv
> wIja'chuq} is grammatical.
jangqa' De'vID=2C jatlh:
> Do we actually *know* this=2C or is it just an educated guess as to
> what's going on?
There's a lot of the spectrum between "fact" and "educated guess".
taH:
> That's what I thought when I first saw it=2C but then it was pointed out
> (by ghunchu'wI' the last time we tried to dissect {quv HIja'chuqQo'}
> on this mailing list) that TKD was very explicit about {ja'chuq}.
> According to TKD 6.2.4: The verb is made up of {ja'} "tell"=2C {-chuq}
> "each other"=3B thus=2C "confer" is "tell each other".
> So=2C the sentence {quv HIja'chuqQo'} contradicts what's written in TKD=
=2C
> either in section 4.2.1 or in section 6.2.4.
Yes=2C=0A=
it does. Blatantly so. But there it is=2C not only bivalent=2C but =0A=
prefix-tricked-out into the bargain. The sentence could have quite =0A=
simply been the more pedestrian {quv HIjatlhQo'} "don't talk [about] =0A=
honour to me"=2C but it isn't. It simply begs for an explanation=2C and the=
=0A=
best explanation=2C to me=2C is simply that {ja'chuq} is here acting as a =
=0A=
lexified verb that can take an object.
Firstly=2C we know for a =0A=
fact that some Klingons also lexify other verb-suffix combinations (MSN =0A=
Newsgroup 30 Nov 1997). Although Marc stated in this email that it seems=0A=
to happen only for {-moH}=2C this (a) was at a stage when relatively less=
=0A=
was known about Klingon than it is now=2C and (b) was a hedge in the =0A=
original email anyway ("seems to")=2C and (c) despite the fact that only =
=0A=
{chenmoH} and {ja'chuq} were asked about in the email to which Marc was =0A=
responding=2C he explicitly dodged that specific example in his response. =
=0A=
Indeed=2C he finishes his email by noting that {chenmoH} is =0A=
straightforwardly separable=2C but then closes with "I'll try to answer =0A=
your second question=2C about {ja'chuq}=2C in a separate posting." The =0A=
strong implication is that there *is* something more going on with =0A=
{ja'chuq} than with {chenmoH}=2C something that Marc believed did warrant a=
=0A=
second and separate posting=2C but unfortunately he doesn't seem to ever =
=0A=
have got around to writing said post. And finally=2C it would make =0A=
particular linguistic sense for {ja'chuq} to have been lexified=2C since =
=0A=
it would be rare for a Verb-Type 1 combination to be separated by an =0A=
affix of any sort.
This isn't to say that TKD 6.2.4 is =0A=
superseded=2C of course=2C any more than knowing about the verb {lo'laH} "b=
e=0A=
valuable" means that all instances of {lo'laH} "she can use it" are =0A=
necessarily superseded. Hell=2C in the same way as we can technically say =
=0A=
{lo'laHlaH} "it can be valuable"=2C perhaps there's such a construction as=
=0A=
{ja'chuqchuq} "talk about each other". Who knows? The argument =0A=
structure in the paq'batlh example completely precludes the =0A=
interpretation as {ja'} + {-chuq} - but only for itself. The 6.2.4 =0A=
example has no object and so still can be interpreted as {ja'} + =0A=
{-chuq}.
taH:
> The "prefix trick" was revealed (or retroactively invented=2C perhaps)
> after the publication of TKD. How does it interact with {-'egh} and
> {-chuq}=2C and with SuStel's idea that "Klingon syntax does not
> distinguish between direct and indirect objects at all=2C even when it
> does so semantically"?
I=0A=
really am not quite sure how the prefix trick and the Type 1 verb =0A=
suffixes interact=2C and that's what I said explicitly at the end of my =0A=
last email=2C in the bit about whether or not I accepted {Qu'maj =0A=
wIqawchuqmoH}.
taH:
> We know from canon that we can say {wo'rIvvaD quH qawmoH Ha'quj} "The
> sash reminds Worf of his heritage". Grammatically=2C {SoHvaD Qu'
> yIqawmoH} "remind you(rself) of the mission" is also possible. Can the
> prefix trick turn this into *{Qu' yIqaw'eghmoH}? This violates the
> rule in TKD 4.2.1 that the prefix set indicating "no object" is used
> with {-'egh}.
And=0A=
again=2C I think you're taking TKD 4.2.1 in inappropriate isolation=2C and=
=0A=
ignoring the fact that {-moH} can add an object to a verb that otherwise=0A=
lacks one. Why should those verbs that lack an object because they have=0A=
an added {-'egh} or {-chuq} be any different from verbs that just =0A=
inherently lack an object? It's dangerous to take any local statement =0A=
from TKD and assume that it applies globally to the entire language =0A=
without qualification.
taH:
> But then again=2C the prefix trick can put a prefix indicating an object =
on
> a verb where one would have otherwise expected a "no object" prefix.
So can {-moH}.
taH:
> If {SoHvaD quv vIja'} =3D {quv qaja'} and {jIHvaD quv Daja'} =3D {quv
> choja'}=2C can these be combined using the prefix trick into *{quv
> maja'chuq}? After all=2C we can combine {qaqIp} and {choqIp} into
> {maqIpchuq}.
There=0A=
are a lot of problems with that idea. Firstly=2C what would the =0A=
non-prefix-tricked version of this be? Secondly=2C the prefix trick can =0A=
only *add* an object to the verb prefix=2C not delete one. Thirdly=2C =0A=
{maqIpchuq} doesn't mean the same thing as {qaqIp 'ej choqIp}. There =0A=
need not be any second person involved at all in {maqIpchuq}=2C for that =
=0A=
matter. It's misleading to talk about these things being "combined". Put=0A=
another way: in English=2C we can quite happily say "I talk to you about =
=0A=
honour" and "you talk to me about honour"=2C but does the superficially =0A=
"combined" version "I and you talk to you and me about honour" make any =0A=
sense at all? Finally=2C combining {qaqIp} and {choqIp} is not the prefix =
=0A=
trick anyway=2C so talking about combining concepts "using the prefix =0A=
trick" just doesn't make sense at all to me. I honestly just don't =0A=
understand it.
taH:
> It's true that there's no canon to support this=2C but it's just a combin=
ed
> application of two ideas that we do have canon for: the prefix trick
> and {-chuq}.
I don't think the combined application is as transparent as you believe it =
to be.
taH:
> As for the objection in the HolQeD 7:4 interview that {bIQtIq jIjaH}
> because {bIQtIq} has no role in the sentence=2C I don't believe that appl=
ies
> to {quv} here. {quv} has the same role in {quv maja'chuq} that it did
> in {quv vIja'} and {quv Daja'}.
That merely begs the question=2C and in the latter two it's the pronominal =
prefix that signals the said role=2C where in the former there is no signal=
from the pronominal prefix that there's an object present.
taH:
> So far=2C I don't think {quv maja'chuq} explicitly violates any rules. I
> may be applying two known rules in a way never done before and
> unsupported by any canon example [except possibly {quv HIja'chuqQo'}=2C
> see immediately below]=2C but I don't see an explicit violation. (I
> mean=2C in the sense that a proposal like *{quv wIja'chuq} explicitly
> violates the "no object" rule for {-chuq}.)
As I said=2C I continue to think the rule of {rom} is categorical in its pr=
ohibition of {quv maja'chuq}.
QeS 'utlh =
--_01fe0ca2-a9e0-4868-a1af-198e548a8e5e_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>jIjatlhpu' jIH:<br>>=3B I know=
of none either=2C and I'd make substantial bets that we will never=2C<br>&=
gt=3B ever see that. Agreement prefixes have the function of signalling the=
<br>>=3B relationships of the nouns in the sentence to the verb and to ea=
ch other=2C<br><br>(poD vay')<br><br>mujang De'vID=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B Okay=
. What about {quv'e' maja'chuq} and {Qu'maj'e' maqawchuqmoH}?<br>>=3B Now=
{quv} and {Qu'maj} have a function in their respective sentences.<br><br>Y=
es=2C=0A=
with {-'e'} my issues with the pronominal prefixes simply disappear=2C =0A=
and the first one is fine: "as for honour=2C we confer". On the =0A=
{Qu'maj'e'} example=2C though=2C to me the sense is somewhat different. =0A=
{Qu'maj'e' maqawchuqmoH} actually sounds more like "It's our mission to =0A=
make each other remember". (Literally=2C it's "as for our mission=2C we mak=
e=0A=
each other remember"=3B I've just expressed it more idiomatically here=2C =
=0A=
in the way that I'd understand that utterance.)<br><br>jIjatlhqa'pu':<br>&g=
t=3B In terms of the two sentences given by De'vID: no=2C I would say that =
both of<br>>=3B these are categorically impossible. Both of them would re=
quire the<br>>=3B pronominal prefix {wI-}=2C at least.<br><br>jangqa' je =
De'vID=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B From TKD 4.2.1: This suffix is used only with pl=
ural subjects. It is<br>>=3B translated "each other" or "one another". Th=
e prefix set indicating<br>>=3B "no object" is also used when this suffix=
is used.<br><br>net Sov. That's why I went on to give further explanations=
and interpretations and didn't just leave that statement hanging.<br><br>t=
aH:<br>>=3B It's not possible to use {wI-} with {-chuq}=2C at least if we=
take TKD<br>>=3B at its word.<br><br>That=0A=
takes TKD 4.2.1 not only at its word=2C but also in isolation and without=
=0A=
additional and appropriate context. What about {-moH}? It's a tool =0A=
specifically for increasing the count of actants by one=2C and for =0A=
monovalent verbs=2C that means adding an object. Whatever you take =0A=
{wIqawchuqmoH} to mean=2C I contend that it is absolutely grammatical. =0A=
{-chuq} deletes the object of the basic bivalent verb {qaw}. {-moH} adds=0A=
a new object to the newly-monovalent verb {qawchuq}. What's so =0A=
problematic about that?<br><br>jIjatlhqa'pu':<br>>=3B We know from paq'ba=
tlh that {ja'chuq} has become lexified with the<br>>=3B meaning "discuss"=
and can take an object: {quv HIja'chuqQo'} "do<br>>=3B not discuss honou=
r with me" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 19.12)=2C so {quv<br>>=3B wIja'chuq} is gr=
ammatical.<br><br>jangqa' De'vID=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B Do we actually *know* =
this=2C or is it just an educated guess as to<br>>=3B what's going on?<br=
><br>There's a lot of the spectrum between "fact" and "educated guess".<br>=
<br>taH:<br>>=3B That's what I thought when I first saw it=2C but then it=
was pointed out<br>>=3B (by ghunchu'wI' the last time we tried to dissec=
t {quv HIja'chuqQo'}<br>>=3B on this mailing list) that TKD was very expl=
icit about {ja'chuq}.<br>>=3B According to TKD 6.2.4: The verb is made up=
of {ja'} "tell"=2C {-chuq}<br>>=3B "each other"=3B thus=2C "confer" is "=
tell each other".<br>>=3B So=2C the sentence {quv HIja'chuqQo'} contradic=
ts what's written in TKD=2C<br>>=3B either in section 4.2.1 or in section=
6.2.4.<br><br>Yes=2C=0A=
it does. Blatantly so. But there it is=2C not only bivalent=2C but =0A=
prefix-tricked-out into the bargain. The sentence could have quite =0A=
simply been the more pedestrian {quv HIjatlhQo'} "don't talk [about] =0A=
honour to me"=2C but it isn't. It simply begs for an explanation=2C and the=
=0A=
best explanation=2C to me=2C is simply that {ja'chuq} is here acting as a =
=0A=
lexified verb that can take an object.<br><br>Firstly=2C we know for a =0A=
fact that some Klingons also lexify other verb-suffix combinations (MSN =0A=
Newsgroup 30 Nov 1997). Although Marc stated in this email that it seems=0A=
to happen only for {-moH}=2C this (a) was at a stage when relatively less=
=0A=
was known about Klingon than it is now=2C and (b) was a hedge in the =0A=
original email anyway ("seems to")=2C and (c) despite the fact that only =
=0A=
{chenmoH} and {ja'chuq} were asked about in the email to which Marc was =0A=
responding=2C he explicitly dodged that specific example in his response. =
=0A=
Indeed=2C he finishes his email by noting that {chenmoH} is =0A=
straightforwardly separable=2C but then closes with "I'll try to answer =0A=
your second question=2C about {ja'chuq}=2C in a separate posting." The =0A=
strong implication is that there *is* something more going on with =0A=
{ja'chuq} than with {chenmoH}=2C something that Marc believed did warrant a=
=0A=
second and separate posting=2C but unfortunately he doesn't seem to ever =
=0A=
have got around to writing said post. And finally=2C it would make =0A=
particular linguistic sense for {ja'chuq} to have been lexified=2C since =
=0A=
it would be rare for a Verb-Type 1 combination to be separated by an =0A=
affix of any sort.<br><br>This isn't to say that TKD 6.2.4 is =0A=
superseded=2C of course=2C any more than knowing about the verb {lo'laH} "b=
e=0A=
valuable" means that all instances of {lo'laH} "she can use it" are =0A=
necessarily superseded. Hell=2C in the same way as we can technically say =
=0A=
{lo'laHlaH} "it can be valuable"=2C perhaps there's such a construction as=
=0A=
{ja'chuqchuq} "talk about each other". Who knows? The argument =0A=
structure in the paq'batlh example completely precludes the =0A=
interpretation as {ja'} + {-chuq} - but only for itself. The 6.2.4 =0A=
example has no object and so still can be interpreted as {ja'} + =0A=
{-chuq}.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B The "prefix trick" was revealed (or retroact=
ively invented=2C perhaps)<br>>=3B after the publication of TKD. How does=
it interact with {-'egh} and<br>>=3B {-chuq}=2C and with SuStel's idea t=
hat "Klingon syntax does not<br>>=3B distinguish between direct and indir=
ect objects at all=2C even when it<br>>=3B does so semantically"?<br><br>=
I=0A=
really am not quite sure how the prefix trick and the Type 1 verb =0A=
suffixes interact=2C and that's what I said explicitly at the end of my =0A=
last email=2C in the bit about whether or not I accepted {Qu'maj =0A=
wIqawchuqmoH}.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B We know from canon that we can say {wo=
'rIvvaD quH qawmoH Ha'quj} "The<br>>=3B sash reminds Worf of his heritage=
". Grammatically=2C {SoHvaD Qu'<br>>=3B yIqawmoH} "remind you(rself) of t=
he mission" is also possible. Can the<br>>=3B prefix trick turn this into=
*{Qu' yIqaw'eghmoH}? This violates the<br>>=3B rule in TKD 4.2.1 that th=
e prefix set indicating "no object" is used<br>>=3B with {-'egh}.<br><br>=
And=0A=
again=2C I think you're taking TKD 4.2.1 in inappropriate isolation=2C and=
=0A=
ignoring the fact that {-moH} can add an object to a verb that otherwise=0A=
lacks one. Why should those verbs that lack an object because they have=0A=
an added {-'egh} or {-chuq} be any different from verbs that just =0A=
inherently lack an object? It's dangerous to take any local statement =0A=
from TKD and assume that it applies globally to the entire language =0A=
without qualification.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B But then again=2C the prefix t=
rick can put a prefix indicating an object on<br>>=3B a verb where one wo=
uld have otherwise expected a "no object" prefix.<br><br>So can {-moH}.<br>=
<br>taH:<br>>=3B If {SoHvaD quv vIja'} =3D {quv qaja'} and {jIHvaD quv Da=
ja'} =3D {quv<br>>=3B choja'}=2C can these be combined using the prefix t=
rick into *{quv<br>>=3B maja'chuq}? After all=2C we can combine {qaqIp} a=
nd {choqIp} into<br>>=3B {maqIpchuq}.<br><br>There=0A=
are a lot of problems with that idea. Firstly=2C what would the =0A=
non-prefix-tricked version of this be? Secondly=2C the prefix trick can =0A=
only *add* an object to the verb prefix=2C not delete one. Thirdly=2C =0A=
{maqIpchuq} doesn't mean the same thing as {qaqIp 'ej choqIp}. There =0A=
need not be any second person involved at all in {maqIpchuq}=2C for that =
=0A=
matter. It's misleading to talk about these things being "combined". Put=0A=
another way: in English=2C we can quite happily say "I talk to you about =
=0A=
honour" and "you talk to me about honour"=2C but does the superficially =0A=
"combined" version "I and you talk to you and me about honour" make any =0A=
sense at all? Finally=2C combining {qaqIp} and {choqIp} is not the prefix =
=0A=
trick anyway=2C so talking about combining concepts "using the prefix =0A=
trick" just doesn't make sense at all to me. I honestly just don't =0A=
understand it.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B It's true that there's no canon to sup=
port this=2C but it's just a combined<br>>=3B application of two ideas th=
at we do have canon for: the prefix trick<br>>=3B and {-chuq}.<br><br>I d=
on't think the combined application is as transparent as you believe it to =
be.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B As for the objection in the HolQeD 7:4 interview =
that {bIQtIq jIjaH}<br>>=3B because {bIQtIq} has no role in the sentence=
=2C I don't believe that applies<br>>=3B to {quv} here. {quv} has the sam=
e role in {quv maja'chuq} that it did<br>>=3B in {quv vIja'} and {quv Daj=
a'}.<br><br>That merely begs the question=2C and in the latter two it's the=
pronominal prefix that signals the said role=2C where in the former there =
is no signal from the pronominal prefix that there's an object present.<br>=
<br>taH:<br>>=3B So far=2C I don't think {quv maja'chuq} explicitly viola=
tes any rules. I<br>>=3B may be applying two known rules in a way never d=
one before and<br>>=3B unsupported by any canon example [except possibly =
{quv HIja'chuqQo'}=2C<br>>=3B see immediately below]=2C but I don't see a=
n explicit violation. (I<br>>=3B mean=2C in the sense that a proposal lik=
e *{quv wIja'chuq} explicitly<br>>=3B violates the "no object" rule for {=
-chuq}.)<br><br>As I said=2C I continue to think the rule of {rom} is categ=
orical in its prohibition of {quv maja'chuq}.<br><br>QeS 'utlh <=
/div></body>
</html>=
--_01fe0ca2-a9e0-4868-a1af-198e548a8e5e_--
--===============6258986676931145382==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============6258986676931145382==--
