[109720] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] What is a sentence?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Sat Jun 10 19:52:18 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:51:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6EDBB00E-0A8D-4F27-8487-72FED3F320B7@alcaco.net>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============5060524338414824192==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------663EF9B1155609D615AC079D"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------663EF9B1155609D615AC079D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 6/10/2017 1:12 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>> For instance, Captain Klaa's utterance *reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH*
>> /I've always wanted to fight a Federation ship/ becomes perfectly
>> reasonable without any special grammatical exceptions if we simply
>> look at it as *reH [DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH],* where the brackets
>> delineate a sentence, not just a "construction."
>
> It is already an exception, as {neH} does not use the object {'e'}. It
> has occasionally been suggested that the "previous sentence" is the
> actual object of {neH}. I think that is no more of a stretch than what
> you propose.
*neH* is an exception that is given to us as canon. The previous
sentence directly being the object of the latter sentence is our
conjecture invented purely to explain the adverbial in Klaa's line.
> I do see the distinction between generalizing and making exceptions.
> I'm just not sure it is worth generalizing "all SAO constructions are
> sentences" in order to handle the Klaa example, when a small codicil
> on {neH} works to explain both the placement of {reH} and the lack of
> {'e'}.
An SAO is a "complex sentence." Okrand has called them "sentences."
They're sentences.
And don't presume to tell me my motivations. I'm not interested in
making up rules to explain one line. The placement of adverbials,
syntactic nouns, and other expressions on SAOs comes up again and again
when trying to use Klingon, and knowing whether SAOs are able to do the
things other sentences can do is essential.
> I think it is uncontroversial to call complex sentences made with
> conjunctions "sentences". Do we have any examples of such sentences
> where an adverbial or subordinate clause applies to the entire thing,
> or do they attach to only one main verb? The comparison isn't
> perfectly applicable to a SAO, but it could be instructive.
Complex sentences are not just compound sentences.
6. Syntax
6.2. Complex sentences
6.2.1. Compound sentences
6.2.2. Subordinate clauses
6.2.3. Relative clauses
6.2.4. Purpose clauses
6.2.5. Sentences as objects
Sentences as object are complex sentences. Hence they are sentences.
Comparatives and superlatives are not described as complex sentences in
TKD. /But neither are they called sentences./ They are called
constructions and formulas, but not sentences. Do you claim they are not
sentences? They can even have "header" words put on them, as shown in
our ever-useful *qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.* We also
have adverbials: *reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS.* They're
sentences.
TKD calls "to be" constructions sentences in TKD, even though they do
not appear under either "basic sentences" or "complex sentences."
Compound sentences are described thus in TKD: "Two sentences may be
joined together to form a longer compound sentence. Both sentences must
be able to stand alone as properly formed sentences." Now see this from
KGT: *juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob*/I ask you to lead us
as commander of this ship./ In order for this canonical utterance to be
legal according to TKD, *juDev* and *Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob*
must both be "properly formed sentences." Thus, the SAO is a properly
formed sentence. There are more of these basic-sentence-conunction-SAOs
in /paq'batlh./ THEY - ARE - SENTENCES.
We have an example of what you asked for in /paq'batlh/ as well: an
adverbial that applies to an entire SAO rather than just one of its
component sentences.
ghIq pum 'e' mev
bIQtIq Doq legh
bIQtIq nguvmoH 'Iw
Then he sees bright red
At the end of his fall
It is a river, blood-colored.
This isn't to be interpreted /he stops that he then falls/; it means
/then, he stops falling./
BECAUSE A SENTENCE-AS-OBJECT CONSTRUCTION IS A SENTENCE.
Okrand doesn't go out of his way to avoid calling SAOs (and comparatives
and superlatives) sentences. He just didn't happen to use the word in
his brief paragraphs about them in TKD. He casually calls them sentences
elsewhere, as if it's perfectly obvious that everyone can tell they are
sentences, because it IS perfectly obvious.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------663EF9B1155609D615AC079D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/10/2017 1:12 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6EDBB00E-0A8D-4F27-8487-72FED3F320B7@alcaco.net"
type="cite">
<div>On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:03 PM, SuStel <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>For instance, Captain Klaa's utterance <b>reH DIvI' Duj
vISuv vIneH</b> <i>I've always wanted to fight a Federation
ship</i> becomes perfectly reasonable without any special
grammatical exceptions if we simply look at it as <b>reH
[DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH],</b> where the brackets delineate a
sentence, not just a "construction."</div>
</blockquote>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>
</span></div>
It is already an exception, as {neH} does not use the object
{'e'}. It has occasionally been suggested that the "previous
sentence" is the actual object of {neH}. I think that is no more
of a stretch than what you propose.</span></blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>neH</b> is an exception that is given to us as canon. The
previous sentence directly being the object of the latter sentence
is our conjecture invented purely to explain the adverbial in
Klaa's line.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6EDBB00E-0A8D-4F27-8487-72FED3F320B7@alcaco.net"
type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I do
see the distinction between generalizing and making
exceptions. I'm just not sure it is worth generalizing "all
SAO constructions are sentences" in order to handle the Klaa
example, when a small codicil on {neH} works to explain both
the placement of {reH} and the lack of {'e'}.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>An SAO is a "complex sentence." Okrand has called them
"sentences." They're sentences.</p>
<p>And don't presume to tell me my motivations. I'm not interested
in making up rules to explain one line. The placement of
adverbials, syntactic nouns, and other expressions on SAOs comes
up again and again when trying to use Klingon, and knowing whether
SAOs are able to do the things other sentences can do is
essential.<br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6EDBB00E-0A8D-4F27-8487-72FED3F320B7@alcaco.net"
type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I
think it is uncontroversial to call complex sentences made
with conjunctions "sentences". Do we have any examples of such
sentences where an adverbial or subordinate clause applies to
the entire thing, or do they attach to only one main verb? The
comparison isn't perfectly applicable to a SAO, but it could
be instructive.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Complex sentences are not just compound sentences.</p>
<p>6. Syntax<br>
6.2. Complex sentences<br>
6.2.1. Compound sentences<br>
6.2.2. Subordinate clauses<br>
6.2.3. Relative clauses<br>
6.2.4. Purpose clauses<br>
6.2.5. Sentences as objects</p>
<p>Sentences as object are complex sentences. Hence they are
sentences.</p>
<p>Comparatives and superlatives are not described as complex
sentences in TKD. <i>But neither are they called sentences.</i>
They are called constructions and formulas, but not sentences. Do
you claim they are not sentences? They can even have "header"
words put on them, as shown in our ever-useful <b>qIbDaq
SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.</b> We also have
adverbials: <b>reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS.</b>
They're sentences.<br>
</p>
<p>TKD calls "to be" constructions sentences in TKD, even though
they do not appear under either "basic sentences" or "complex
sentences."</p>
<p>Compound sentences are described thus in TKD: "Two sentences may
be joined together to form a longer compound sentence. Both
sentences must be able to stand alone as properly formed
sentences." Now see this from KGT: <b>juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI'
DagheS 'e' vItlhob</b><i> I ask you to lead us as commander of
this ship.</i> In order for this canonical utterance to be legal
according to TKD, <b>juDev</b> and <b>Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e'
vItlhob</b> must both be "properly formed sentences." Thus, the
SAO is a properly formed sentence. There are more of these
basic-sentence-conunction-SAOs in <i>paq'batlh.</i> THEY - ARE -
SENTENCES.<br>
</p>
<p>We have an example of what you asked for in <i>paq'batlh</i> as
well: an adverbial that applies to an entire SAO rather than just
one of its component sentences.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>ghIq pum 'e' mev<br>
bIQtIq Doq legh<br>
bIQtIq nguvmoH 'Iw</p>
<p>Then he sees bright red<br>
At the end of his fall<br>
It is a river, blood-colored.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This isn't to be interpreted <i>he stops that he then falls</i>;
it means <i>then, he stops falling.</i></p>
<p>BECAUSE A SENTENCE-AS-OBJECT CONSTRUCTION IS A SENTENCE.</p>
<p>Okrand doesn't go out of his way to avoid calling SAOs (and
comparatives and superlatives) sentences. He just didn't happen to
use the word in his brief paragraphs about them in TKD. He
casually calls them sentences elsewhere, as if it's perfectly
obvious that everyone can tell they are sentences, because it IS
perfectly obvious.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------663EF9B1155609D615AC079D--
--===============5060524338414824192==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============5060524338414824192==--
