[102780] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] 2 nouns in apposition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Thu Dec 3 02:19:22 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:19:06 +1000
In-Reply-To: <2520047.160.1449120880469.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============6893539805504416246==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_585ecd5c-9381-40af-89ec-78cc52c30f6b_"
--_585ecd5c-9381-40af-89ec-78cc52c30f6b_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' Voragh=2C jatlh:
> qeylIS loDnI' 'opleS chovan (PB)
jang Anthony=2C jatlh:
> Or=2C "One day=2C brother of Kahless=2C you will bow before me."? Again=
=2C
> how to distinguish between two adjacent nouns X Y meaning "X's Y"
> and "X which is Y"?
Quite simply: context. There's no other way. There is no grammatical markin=
g that distinguishes such constructions from one another=2C no external syn=
tactic clue. Punctuation may be present to help=2C but can't always be reli=
ed upon. In this instance=2C it's knowing what the story is=2C and knowing =
who's talking=2C that allows you to work out that this is probably an appos=
itional compound rather than a genitive one.
taH:
> Context cannot be always relied on to resolve ambiguities.
Some ambiguities are superficially unresolvable=2C but this is no more true=
of Klingon than it is of any other language. This is the reason why some E=
nglish prescriptivists keep bleating about dangling modifiers despite the f=
act that they're perfectly grammatical. If I say to you "as a sci-fi fan=2C=
I recommend you read this book"=2C who's the sci-fi fan here? Me=2C or you=
? From the text alone we not only do not have=2C but outright cannot have=
=2C a clue with any degree of certainty. But context resolves the issue per=
fectly well (in this instance=2C two people being familiar with each other'=
s reading preferences). It's unfair to pick on Klingon for this.
taH:
> Which classes of nouns can be used as Y in the X Y construction as
> "X which is Y"?
I know of no prescriptive rule in this regard.
taH:
> Readers and listeners should not have to go through steps of logic
> based on context and the general situation to distinguish meaning
> :: the meaning should be apparent at first reading/listening.
That's simply wrong. Going through steps of logic based upon context and si=
tuation is what readers and listeners ALWAYS have to do=2C whether you real=
ise it or not. Context informs everything. Let me draw another example in E=
nglish. If you and I were sitting in a bar=2C and I say to you "look at thi=
s bloodwine"=2C where your eyes go is going to be entirely informed by your=
knowledge of where the bloodwine is. If it's in a cup in my hand=2C you're=
going to look at that. If I spilled it down my shirt=2C regardless of the =
cup you're going to be likely to look at the stain on my shirt=2C not the c=
up in my hand. If there's a cup in my hand and another one in front of me=
=2C you may feel a momentary sense of confusion while you try to work out w=
hich one I mean by "this". But if you first look at the one on the table=2C=
then notice out of your peripheral vision that I'm holding up a glass for =
you to look at=2C then your confusion is resolved. All of those possibiliti=
es=2C though=2C are based on ambiguity around what the word "this" could me=
an and the role played by context in disambiguating those meanings in your =
mind - whether or not you consciously realise such a process is going on.
I'm sorry to be so blunt about it=2C but neither in Klingon nor in any othe=
r natural or naturalistic language will you get such a universal unambiguit=
y of meaning. If you want that=2C you should learn Lojban. But Klingon does=
n't=2C and wasn't ever intended to=2C work like that.
QeS 'utlh
=
--_585ecd5c-9381-40af-89ec-78cc52c30f6b_
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'>ghItlhpu' Voragh=2C jatlh:<br>&g=
t=3B qeylIS loDnI' 'opleS chovan (PB)<br><br>jang Anthony=2C jatlh:<br>>=
=3B Or=2C =3B "One day=2C brother of Kahless=2C you will bow before me.=
"? Again=2C<br>>=3B how to distinguish between two adjacent nouns X Y mea=
ning "X's Y"<br>>=3B and "X which is Y"?<br><br>Quite simply: context. Th=
ere's no other way. There is no grammatical marking that distinguishes such=
constructions from one another=2C no external syntactic clue. Punctuation =
may be present to help=2C but can't always be relied upon. In this instance=
=2C it's knowing what the story is=2C and knowing who's talking=2C that all=
ows you to work out that this is probably an appositional compound rather t=
han a genitive one.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B Context cannot be always relied o=
n to resolve ambiguities.<br><br>Some ambiguities are superficially unresol=
vable=2C but this is no more true of Klingon than it is of any other langua=
ge. This is the reason why some English prescriptivists keep bleating about=
dangling modifiers despite the fact that they're perfectly grammatical. If=
I say to you "as a sci-fi fan=2C I recommend you read this book"=2C who's =
the sci-fi fan here? Me=2C or you? From the text alone we not only do not h=
ave=2C but outright cannot have=2C a clue with any degree of certainty. But=
context resolves the issue perfectly well (in this instance=2C two people =
being familiar with each other's reading preferences). It's unfair to pick =
on Klingon for this.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B Which classes of nouns can be us=
ed as Y in the X Y construction as<br>>=3B "X which is Y"?<br><br>I know =
of no prescriptive rule in this regard.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B Readers and l=
isteners should not have to go through steps of logic<br>>=3B based on co=
ntext and the general situation to distinguish meaning<br>>=3B :: the mea=
ning should be apparent at first reading/listening.<br><br>That's simply wr=
ong. Going through steps of logic based upon context and situation is what =
readers and listeners ALWAYS have to do=2C whether you realise it or not. C=
ontext informs everything. Let me draw another example in English. If you a=
nd I were sitting in a bar=2C and I say to you "look at this bloodwine"=2C =
where your eyes go is going to be entirely informed by your knowledge of wh=
ere the bloodwine is. If it's in a cup in my hand=2C you're going to look a=
t that. If I spilled it down my shirt=2C regardless of the cup you're going=
to be likely to look at the stain on my shirt=2C not the cup in my hand. I=
f there's a cup in my hand and another one in front of me=2C you may feel a=
momentary sense of confusion while you try to work out which one I mean by=
"this". But if you first look at the one on the table=2C then notice out o=
f your peripheral vision that I'm holding up a glass for you to look at=2C =
then your confusion is resolved. All of those possibilities=2C though=2C ar=
e based on ambiguity around what the word "this" could mean and the role pl=
ayed by context in disambiguating those meanings in your mind - whether or =
not you consciously realise such a process is going on.<br><br>I'm sorry to=
be so blunt about it=2C but neither in Klingon nor in any other natural or=
naturalistic language will you get such a universal unambiguity of meaning=
. If you want that=2C you should learn Lojban. But Klingon doesn't=2C and w=
asn't ever intended to=2C work like that.<br><br>QeS 'utlh<br> <=
/div></body>
</html>=
--_585ecd5c-9381-40af-89ec-78cc52c30f6b_--
--===============6893539805504416246==
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
--===============6893539805504416246==--
