[102587] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh)
Tue Nov 24 23:18:01 2015
From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:17:41 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFgJOr2wgBHmOE2TE2vFejanJEBjTvMYpXgXh8R+DvNvGaktAw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============4399373741555316605==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9A3A426C-D498-42F4-A6F2-CED8488336EF"
--Apple-Mail=_9A3A426C-D498-42F4-A6F2-CED8488336EF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
This message was held back to be reviewed by a moderator because it was =
too long (because I quoted too much from earlier, lengthy messages). =
I=E2=80=99m shortening it now=E2=80=A6
Here, most of the people who learned the language well most quickly are =
either computer programmers or tech support. Krankor, the first person =
to speak it conversationally, is a programmer. Seqram, the second person =
to speak it conversationally, is a programmer. I=E2=80=99ve never worked =
as a programmer, but there=E2=80=99s a =E2=80=9CWolfe Test=E2=80=9D that =
is supposed to be an accurate predictor of aptitude for programming =
skill. I scored in the 60% percentile among employed computer =
programmers, in part because, though I missed some answers, I finished =
the test in less than half the time it=E2=80=99s supposed to take to do =
so. I found the test oddly thrilling, like part of me that normally gets =
no exercise was allowed a rare opportunity to run freely.
There are exceptions to the computer-Klingon connection, but few enough =
to make it obvious that part of the appeal to the core group of speakers =
is that the grammar is logical in an interesting way. There are =
exceptions, but Okrand has been really good at explaining them.
Up to now.
If your theory is correct, and it shows many signs of probably being =
correct, then I, for one, and really disappointed that Okrand has =
apparently either been slow and sloppy to decide that this is how it =
works, and he hasn=E2=80=99t gotten around to explaining it yet, or =
he=E2=80=99s been decisive about it, for a long time now, and hasn=E2=80=99=
t felt like it was particularly important to explain it to us.
Either way, I fell like an old friend has invented an inside joke and =
left me on the outside of it, and it doesn=E2=80=99t feel all that =
funny.
Your explanation of why {-vaD} is not necessary to disambiguate which =
kind of object a person vs. a language or topic is the object of =
{ghojmoH} makes a very weak case for how this could be generalized to =
other verbs, especially those for whom either a person or a thing could =
function in either role with no special relationship to the verb. We =
know that when a thing is taught, that means it=E2=80=99s the topic =
being learned, and when a person is taught, that means it is the person =
acquiring the learning, but most verbs, like =E2=80=9Chit=E2=80=9D or =
=E2=80=9Csee=E2=80=9D or, well most verbs that can take an object can =
have the same noun in one sentence or another acting as either the =
subject or the direct object, and so if you add {-moH}, and put only one =
noun in the object position, you have no clue whether it was the subject =
or object before the {-moH} was added to the verb.
All of our examples have had obviously different sets of nouns for =
subject and object of the implied statement before being transmogrified =
by {-moH}. Does this imply that only these verbs work with {-moH}? We =
don=E2=80=99t know.
In your discussion about verbs where the original subject of the =
pre-{-moH} statement is the only object, so you can drop the implied =
{-vaD}, does that mean that explicitly stating that {-vaD} is wrong? =
Well, we don=E2=80=99t know.
There=E2=80=99s less that we know about a general rule of verbs with =
objects that then have {-moH} added than we do know about it. We can =
guess and have theories all we like, but basically, we=E2=80=99re full =
of bluster without substance until Okrand explains WTF he=E2=80=99s =
doing here.
He has explained {-moH} added to stative verbs. He=E2=80=99s given us a =
couple of rather special examples of verbs with direct objects scrambled =
a bit when {-moH} is added.
That=E2=80=99s it.
That=E2=80=99s all we have.
We=E2=80=99ve had this much for years, and he=E2=80=99s apparently happy =
to leave us hanging.
I like this, not.
I have had such a deep respect for this charming, witty, kind man, and =
I=E2=80=99ve really enjoyed the language he=E2=80=99s created. But right =
now=E2=80=A6
I=E2=80=99m not feeling that so much, right now.
I might go away for a while and dwell on happier things, and I =
apologize, quite sincerely for the stubborn, frustrating, dark mood of =
my recent posts. The Klingon language has been a nearly perfect jewel =
for me. It=E2=80=99s like a cave to explore, and here I am at a pinch =
point I can=E2=80=99t squeeze through.
I=E2=80=99ve been here before, on this very grammatical point. I =
intentionally forgot it and ignored that it existed, because it=E2=80=99s =
really quite unnecessary to have this resolved in order to speak Klingon =
quite well.
But it=E2=80=99s like a black hole, pulling me in. Okrand sheds no light =
on it. For years now.
I need to leave it alone.
lojmIt tI=E2=80=99wI=E2=80=99 nuv =E2=80=98utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:43 PM, Brent Kesler =
<brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> I've read your argument now, and I wish I had read it sooner. I'm glad =
I'm catching up.
>=20
> Before I answer some of your questions, I'm going to copy and paste my =
examples for easy reference:
>=20
> 10. puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.
> 11. puq vIghojmoH.
> 12. QeD vIghojmoH.
>=20
> You're right that I don't explain how both sentences 11 and 12 follow =
from 10. The reason is that my argument is just a hypothesis. It could =
be wrong. Both {puq vIghojmoH} and {QeD vIghojmoH} seem like acceptable =
sentences to me, and this is an explanation of how both sentences =
*could* be acceptable. But we don't have strong enough evidence to say =
that it's an actual rule.
>=20
> However, I want to clarify a bit of my thinking. I'm don't think of =
sentence 11 as deleting the thing being taught (QeD) and moving the =
person being taught (puq) from the {-vaD} position to the direct object =
position. I think all three sentences--10, 11, and 12--are separate =
applications of {-moH} to the underlying sentence {QeD ghoj puq}.
>=20
> We only need a clear rule when we have three arguments with a =
transitive verb + {-moH}: previous A is marked as a non-core argument =
with {-vaD}, and previous O remains the O. If we leave one of those =
arguments out, we can put *either* the previous O or the previous A in =
the O slot. As long as we use only one of them, we don't need any =
special syntactic marking to make the meaning clear. (At least that's my =
hypothesis).
>=20
> If that's the case, I don't need to delete {QeD} and promote {puqvaD} =
up to {puq}, and I don't need a rule saying I can do that. If I say {QeD =
vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that I'm not standing in a classroom with =
Science sitting at his desk while I give a lecture about poetry. If I =
say {puq vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that I'm not standing in a classroom =
giving a lecture about children--or at least, most people would assume I =
helping a child learn something, since that's the usual meaning of a =
sentence like that--and it's the usual meaning because that's what =
happens more often in our real world experience. If we lived in the =
setting of "Children of Men", maybe a lecture about children would be =
the "obvious" meaning of {puq vIghojmoH}.
>=20
> In other words, I think Klingon offers multiple strategies when =
applying {-moH} to transitives, and speakers can choose the strategy =
that best fits what they want to say. I think that fits the spirit of =
many of MO's translations, but--again, and I can't stress this =
enough--this is just my hypothesis, and it could be wrong.
>=20
> I think part of this debate stems from the two different ways we look =
at language and grammar (for any language). The first is that language =
is an exercise in symbolic logic. Words have a clear symbolic meaning, =
and grammars give clear rules for arranging those symbols to create new =
meanings. The second is that languages are used by organic beings that =
aren't really good at using symbolic logic, so they end up with a lot of =
quirks that don't follow nice logical rules. Sometimes there's a hidden =
logic to those quirks that even the speakers aren't aware of, but =
sometimes they are just exceptions to the rules that need to be =
memorized. In other words, language is as much an exercise in culture =
and history as it is in symbolic logic.
>=20
> I think a lot of people here prefer the symbolic logic approach for =
two reasons: 1) a lot of us have an education or career that relies =
heavily on symbolic logic (eg, computer programmers), so that's just the =
way we're used to thinking; and 2) you can use symbolic logic to figure =
out things you didn't know before. If you have to rely on culture or =
history, then you can't figure it out on your own--someone has to tell =
you the answer. And when you're learning Klingon, waiting for an answer =
can be agonizing slow.
>=20
> bI'reng
--Apple-Mail=_9A3A426C-D498-42F4-A6F2-CED8488336EF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D"">This message was held back to be reviewed by a moderator =
because it was too long (because I quoted too much from earlier, lengthy =
messages). I=E2=80=99m shortening it now=E2=80=A6<div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><div class=3D"">Here, most of the =
people who learned the language well most quickly are either computer =
programmers or tech support. Krankor, the first person to speak it =
conversationally, is a programmer. Seqram, the second person to speak it =
conversationally, is a programmer. I=E2=80=99ve never worked as a =
programmer, but there=E2=80=99s a =E2=80=9CWolfe Test=E2=80=9D that is =
supposed to be an accurate predictor of aptitude for programming skill. =
I scored in the 60% percentile among employed computer programmers, in =
part because, though I missed some answers, I finished the test in less =
than half the time it=E2=80=99s supposed to take to do so. I found the =
test oddly thrilling, like part of me that normally gets no exercise was =
allowed a rare opportunity to run freely.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">There are exceptions to the =
computer-Klingon connection, but few enough to make it obvious that part =
of the appeal to the core group of speakers is that the grammar is =
logical in an interesting way. There are exceptions, but Okrand has been =
really good at explaining them.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Up to now.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">If your theory is correct, and it shows =
many signs of probably being correct, then I, for one, and really =
disappointed that Okrand has apparently either been slow and sloppy to =
decide that this is how it works, and he hasn=E2=80=99t gotten around to =
explaining it yet, or he=E2=80=99s been decisive about it, for a long =
time now, and hasn=E2=80=99t felt like it was particularly important to =
explain it to us.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Either way, I fell like an old friend has invented an inside =
joke and left me on the outside of it, and it doesn=E2=80=99t feel all =
that funny.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Your=
explanation of why {-vaD} is not necessary to disambiguate which kind =
of object a person vs. a language or topic is the object of {ghojmoH} =
makes a very weak case for how this could be generalized to other verbs, =
especially those for whom either a person or a thing could function in =
either role with no special relationship to the verb. We know that when =
a thing is taught, that means it=E2=80=99s the topic being learned, and =
when a person is taught, that means it is the person acquiring the =
learning, but most verbs, like =E2=80=9Chit=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Csee=E2=80=
=9D or, well most verbs that can take an object can have the same noun =
in one sentence or another acting as either the subject or the direct =
object, and so if you add {-moH}, and put only one noun in the object =
position, you have no clue whether it was the subject or object before =
the {-moH} was added to the verb.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">All of our examples have had obviously =
different sets of nouns for subject and object of the implied statement =
before being transmogrified by {-moH}. Does this imply that only these =
verbs work with {-moH}? We don=E2=80=99t know.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">In your discussion about verbs where =
the original subject of the pre-{-moH} statement is the only object, so =
you can drop the implied {-vaD}, does that mean that explicitly stating =
that {-vaD} is wrong? Well, we don=E2=80=99t know.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">There=E2=80=99s less =
that we know about a general rule of verbs with objects that then have =
{-moH} added than we do know about it. We can guess and have theories =
all we like, but basically, we=E2=80=99re full of bluster without =
substance until Okrand explains WTF he=E2=80=99s doing here.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">He has explained {-moH} =
added to stative verbs. He=E2=80=99s given us a couple of rather special =
examples of verbs with direct objects scrambled a bit when {-moH} is =
added.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">That=E2=80=
=99s it.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">That=E2=80=99s all we have.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">We=E2=80=99ve had this much for years, =
and he=E2=80=99s apparently happy to leave us hanging.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I like this, =
not.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I have =
had such a deep respect for this charming, witty, kind man, and I=E2=80=99=
ve really enjoyed the language he=E2=80=99s created. But right =
now=E2=80=A6</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">I=E2=80=99m not feeling that so much, right now.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I might go away for a =
while and dwell on happier things, and I apologize, quite sincerely for =
the stubborn, frustrating, dark mood of my recent posts. The Klingon =
language has been a nearly perfect jewel for me. It=E2=80=99s like a =
cave to explore, and here I am at a pinch point I can=E2=80=99t squeeze =
through.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I=E2=80=
=99ve been here before, on this very grammatical point. I intentionally =
forgot it and ignored that it existed, because it=E2=80=99s really quite =
unnecessary to have this resolved in order to speak Klingon quite =
well.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">But =
it=E2=80=99s like a black hole, pulling me in. Okrand sheds no light on =
it. For years now.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">I need to leave it alone.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<div class=3D""><div class=3D"">lojmIt tI=E2=80=99wI=E2=80=99 nuv =
=E2=80=98utlh</div><div class=3D"">Door Repair Guy, Retired =
Honorably</div></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:43 PM, Brent Kesler <<a =
href=3D"mailto:brent.of.all.people@gmail.com" =
class=3D"">brent.of.all.people@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">I've read your argument now, and I wish I had read it sooner. =
I'm glad I'm catching up.<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Before I answer some of your questions, I'm going to copy and =
paste my examples for easy reference:</div><div class=3D""><span =
style=3D"font-size:12.8px" class=3D""><br class=3D""></span></div><div =
class=3D""><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px" class=3D"">10. puqvaD QeD =
vIghojmoH.</span></div><div class=3D""><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px" =
class=3D"">11. puq vIghojmoH.</span></div><div class=3D""><span =
style=3D"font-size:12.8px" class=3D"">12. QeD vIghojmoH.</span><span =
style=3D"font-size:12.8px" class=3D""><br class=3D""></span><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">You're right that I =
don't explain how both sentences 11 and 12 follow from 10. The reason is =
that my argument is just a hypothesis. It could be wrong. Both {puq =
vIghojmoH} and {QeD vIghojmoH} seem like acceptable sentences to me, and =
this is an explanation of how both sentences *could* be acceptable. But =
we don't have strong enough evidence to say that it's an actual =
rule.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">However, =
I want to clarify a bit of my thinking. I'm don't think of sentence 11 =
as deleting the thing being taught (QeD) and moving the person being =
taught (puq) from the {-vaD} position to the direct object position. I =
think all three sentences--10, 11, and 12--are separate applications of =
{-moH} to the underlying sentence {QeD ghoj puq}.</div><div class=3D""><br=
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">We only need a clear rule when we have =
three arguments with a transitive verb + {-moH}: previous A is marked as =
a non-core argument with {-vaD}, and previous O remains the O. If we =
leave one of those arguments out, we can put *either* the previous O or =
the previous A in the O slot. As long as we use only one of them, we =
don't need any special syntactic marking to make the meaning clear. (At =
least that's my hypothesis).</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">If that's the case, I don't need to =
delete {QeD} and promote {puqvaD} up to {puq}, and I don't need a rule =
saying I can do that. If I say {QeD vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that I'm =
not standing in a classroom with Science sitting at his desk while I =
give a lecture about poetry. If I say {puq vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that =
I'm not standing in a classroom giving a lecture about children--or at =
least, most people would assume I helping a child learn something, since =
that's the usual meaning of a sentence like that--and it's the usual =
meaning because that's what happens more often in our real world =
experience. If we lived in the setting of "Children of Men", maybe a =
lecture about children would be the "obvious" meaning of {puq =
vIghojmoH}.<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">In other words, I think Klingon offers multiple strategies =
when applying {-moH} to transitives, and speakers can choose the =
strategy that best fits what they want to say. I think that fits the =
spirit of many of MO's translations, but--again, and I can't stress this =
enough--this is just my hypothesis, and it could be wrong.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I think part of this =
debate stems from the two different ways we look at language and grammar =
(for any language). The first is that language is an exercise in =
symbolic logic. Words have a clear symbolic meaning, and grammars give =
clear rules for arranging those symbols to create new meanings. The =
second is that languages are used by organic beings that aren't really =
good at using symbolic logic, so they end up with a lot of quirks that =
don't follow nice logical rules. Sometimes there's a hidden logic to =
those quirks that even the speakers aren't aware of, but sometimes they =
are just exceptions to the rules that need to be memorized. In other =
words, language is as much an exercise in culture and history as it is =
in symbolic logic.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">I think a lot of people here prefer the symbolic logic =
approach for two reasons: 1) a lot of us have an education or career =
that relies heavily on symbolic logic (eg, computer programmers), so =
that's just the way we're used to thinking; and 2) you can use symbolic =
logic to figure out things you didn't know before. If you have to rely =
on culture or history, then you can't figure it out on your own--someone =
has to tell you the answer. And when you're learning Klingon, waiting =
for an answer can be agonizing slow.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">bI'reng</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br =
class=3D""></div></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_9A3A426C-D498-42F4-A6F2-CED8488336EF--
--===============4399373741555316605==
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
--===============4399373741555316605==--
