[102546] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Nov 23 11:57:47 2015
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:57:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <2AA66EB8-26FA-4847-966B-8E23C3BD3FBE@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 11/23/2015 11:38 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> SuStel has presented a hypothesis about how some verbs work with
>> multiple objects, namely, that "Klingon syntax does not distinguish
>> between direct and indirect objects at all, even when it does so
>> semantically.=94
>
> I respect his theory, though I=92m not convinced that it is a generally
> acceptable truth that Klingon doesn=92t need to distinguish between direct
> and indirect objects.
Why do you keep changing my words into something I didn't say? Klingon =
SYNTAX doesn't distinguish between direct and indirect object. Klingon =
SEMANTICS do.
Do you understand the difference between syntax and semantics? I'm =
pretty sure you don't. I assume you're not TRYING to be a jerk, so I'm =
left with the conclusion that you simply don't get it. But every time we =
argue, your tactic is to reword what I said into a straw man you can =
take pot shots at. batlhHa' bIghoH 'e' yImev jay'!
> And if that=92s true for {wo=92rIv} in this example, why is it not true f=
or
> {pa=92} in {pa=92 tujmoH qul}? Since {wo=92rIv} is the one who is caused =
to
> learn and {pa=92} is the thing being caused to be hot, it follows that
> {pa=92vaD tujmoH qul} should be the right and proper way to write =93The
> fire heats the room.=94 The room is the beneficiary of the heating as much
> as Worf is the beneficiary of the teaching. Why do we draw a line here?
> What is the difference? Nobody has touched this yet, apparently because
> it is ugly and messy, so those arguing this point just ignore it and try
> to redirect the problem away from facing the grammatical issue at hand.
I HAVE addressed this. Without a patient or theme, a beneficiary or =
receiver takes the object position.
> Simple: I don=92t make sense out of {quv HIja=92chuqQo=92}. It looks like=
a
> mistake made by someone who looked up =93discuss=94 and took that as the
> literal meaning of the Klingon verb {ja=92chuq}, which more literally
> means =93tell one another=94, and decided that since =93discuss=94 can ta=
ke a
> direct object, so can {ja=92chuq}.
Okrand translated it. One of the grammarians at a qep'a' checked it. It =
is in a canon source.
-- =
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
