[111501] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Sat Oct 7 21:01:15 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 19:55:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8713538243908672879==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------B8C956CE39BADA2E9220E3A3"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------B8C956CE39BADA2E9220E3A3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/5/2017 5:20 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
> *bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang
> *
>
> *SoHvaD* is not an indirect object; it is a benefactive. Now I
> wish I hadn't suggested the "happen to" test to you, because
> you're totally misapplying and misunderstanding it. The sentence
> is not about your beloved receiving a presentation involving
> killing; it is only about your willingness to kill, and your
> beloved is the one who will benefit from it.
>
> Is it the *-qang* suffix that's the problem, then?
> Does *yaSvaD taj nobqang qama' *not have an indirect object now,
> because the giving is only potential and might not actually happen?
> And would *bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHta' *now have an
> indirect object, because the killing has happened in reality and my
> beloved (the "you" being addressed) has received some sign of devotion
> from that?
> In*bangwI',****SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang*, are the warriors not
> really a direct object, because they only exist hypothetically and
> therefore nothing is directly happening to them? Am I not a subject
> because I haven't actually done any killing yet? Where's the dividing
> line between semantic and syntactic role here?
Just stop. You're not understanding my "happens to" test, and you're
completely screwing it up. This has nothing to do with what I said. Just
forget it.
>
> You didn't give anything to your beloved; your beloved isn't
> described as receiving speech or an image or a thing. That she is
> addressed in the sentence is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with
> indirect objects or benefactives.
>
> Receiving things is not how Okrand describes the role of the indirect
> object. That's a definition you introduced, not a universally-accepted
> one. Okrand doesn't talk about what he means specifically by "indirect
> object" at all, only that it can be considered a beneficiary of the
> action, which does not imply that his definition is as specific and
> narrow as the one you're using.
Okrand twice calls an object "the recipient of [the] action." /That is
not what the object of a verb is./ An object is the thing that is acted
upon by the subject, not that receives the action done by the subject.
//
In Object-Verb-Subject, we are told that the object is the recipient of
the action of the verb done by the subject. Oh yeah? *yaSvaD taj nobpu'
qama'.* Did the knife receive anything? *tlhaqwIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'.* Did my
chronometer receive anything? No. Okrand's explanation of what an object
is is just plain wrong.
Then he goes and talks about indirect objects. He doesn't define an
indirect object, but he says it can be considered the beneficiary.
That's not a definition; that's a categorization. Whatever an indirect
object is, it fits into the category of beneficiary.
I'll tell you what an indirect object is (again). An indirect object is
what receives the direct object. If Okrand means anything other than
this when he says "indirect object," he has given absolutely no
indication. But he DOES dedicate a section of the Addendum to it.
//
> *jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* - "I admit that using the prefix trick
> with a stative verb might be too much of a stretch."
>
> Why? If there's no difference between types of *-vaD,* what could
> possibly be wrong with it? /What distinction between that and
> known good examples are you making?/
>
> The difference is that stative verbs never have direct objects,
> whereas the definition of the prefix trick mentions third-person
> direct objects specifically, and the known examples of the prefix
> trick include at least an implied direct object. This struck me as a
> potentially significant difference. My concern has nothing to do
> with*-vaD*.
And do you know why that feels wrong to you on intransitive verbs? It's
because in English intransitive verbs do not take indirect objects.
*Qu'vaD Hegh*/he dies for the mission./ Not an indirect object; a
benefactive. Not a stative verb; an intransitive action verb.
> The reason to think that is that Okrand describes the prefix trick
> for "indirect objects," not for beneficiaries, not for
> benefactives, not for any noun with *-vaD.* "Indirect objects." I
> see no reason to think he uses the term "indirect object" to refer
> to any kind of *-vaD* noun.
>
> Every time he's talked about the role of *-vaD *nouns since TKDa, he's
> talked about them as indirect objects,
No, every time he's talked about indirect objects since the Addendum,
he's talked about words that get *-vaD* added to them.
> There are a lot of things he could have given more examples for, I
> agree. But "indirect object" is a pretty basic concept of English syntax
It's not a pretty basic concept. You don't get it yourself.
> that is not obviously addressed in the first edition of TKD,
It is not addressed AT ALL in the first edition. AT ALL.
> and he may have wanted to talk about it specifically. Maybe someone
> bugged him about it. I can't speak to what Okrand was thinking
> 30-some-odd years ago, but I don't think any major conclusions should
> be drawn based on what got included in the addendum and how it was
> arranged.
Everything in the Addendum comes from /Star Trek/s V and VI and from
/Star Trek: The Next Generation./ Okrand was not yet interacting much
with fans when it was published. I think he'd given some words and
phrases to /veS QonoS/ by then.
I'm not aware of any use of *-vaD* after Valkris's *Qu'vaD lI'* and
prior to the publication of the second edition, so I have no idea what
prompted Okrand to include it in the Addendum.
> 1) When you talk about "indirect objects" (for instance, when talking
> about the prefix trick), are you using it to mean all nouns with the
> *-vaD* suffix? Or are there uses of *-vaD* that you don't count as
> indirect objects (and therefore can't be used with the prefix trick)?
> If the latter is true, what is your definition for when a noun with
> *-vaD* is or isn't an indirect object?
I've answered this over and over in this thread.
> 2) Can be the prefix trick be used in all situations with indirect
> objects (however those turn out to be defined)? Or are there
> exceptions? Are there certain verbs that can never take it? Is its use
> limited to a small subset of verbs?
If by "indirect objects" you mean "nouns with *-vaD,*" which is not what
I mean by it, then this is the question. I have given my opinion and my
reasons, both regarding different types of *-vaD* nouns and different
prefixes that are allowed to participate.
> 3) Can the prefix trick be used with stative verbs that have a *-vaD*
> noun with them? For instance, is it acceptable to turn the phrase
> *jIHvaD lI' De'vam* /"This information is useful for me"/ into *mulI'
> De'vam*? If not, is it because the *-vaD* noun doesn't count as an
> indirect object when used with stative verbs, or because the prefix
> trick needs direct objects which stative verbs can't have, or because
> of some other reason?
This is the same question as 2.
> (And to tie in a question from the other thread about subtitles:)
> 4) Is the prefix trick still strictly limited to 1st/2nd-person
> indirect objects with 3rd-person direct objects, as it was first
> described? If someone uses it with a different arrangement of persons
> in a way that's not confusing, is this acceptable, or is this
> considered "intentional ungrammaticality"?
If me talk like caveman when me hang out with me friends, do them accept
me talking this way, knowing me do it on purpose?
But if you agree that that's how "it was first described" (which is what
Lieven is arguing against), then there's no reason to think anything has
changed. Lieven's /Star Trek Discovery/ transcript is not canon.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------B8C956CE39BADA2E9220E3A3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/5/2017 5:20 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM,
SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:<span class="gmail-"></span><br>
<span class="gmail-"></span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"> </span><span
class="gmail-">
<p><b>bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang<br>
</b></p>
</span>
<p><b>SoHvaD</b> is not an indirect object; it is a
benefactive. Now I wish I hadn't suggested the "happen
to" test to you, because you're totally misapplying
and misunderstanding it. The sentence is not about
your beloved receiving a presentation involving
killing; it is only about your willingness to kill,
and your beloved is the one who will benefit from it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Is it the <b>-qang</b> suffix that's the problem,
then?<br>
</div>
<div>Does <span class="gmail-im"><b>yaSvaD taj nobqang
qama' </b>not have an indirect object now, because
the giving is only potential and might not actually
happen?<br>
</span></div>
<div>And would <span class="gmail-"><b>bangwI', SoHvaD
wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHta' </b>now have an indirect
object, because the killing has happened in reality and
my beloved (the "you" being addressed) has received some
sign of devotion from that?</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail-"></span></div>
<div><span class="gmail-im"></span></div>
<div>In<span class="gmail-"><b> bangwI',</b></span><b> </b><span
class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-"></span><b><span
class="gmail-">SoHvaD</span> wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang</b>,
are the warriors not really a direct object, because
they only exist hypothetically and therefore nothing is
directly happening to them? Am I not a subject because I
haven't actually done any killing yet? Where's the
dividing line between semantic and syntactic role here?</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Just stop. You're not understanding my "happens to" test, and
you're completely screwing it up. This has nothing to do with what
I said. Just forget it.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span class="gmail-"></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">You
didn't give anything to your beloved; your beloved
isn't described as receiving speech or an image or a
thing. That she is addressed in the sentence is
irrelevant; it has nothing to do with indirect objects
or benefactives.</span></blockquote>
<div><span id="gmail-TKDText">Receiving things is not how
Okrand describes the role of the indirect object.
That's a definition you introduced, not a
universally-accepted one. Okrand doesn't talk about
what he means specifically by "indirect object" at
all, only that it can be considered a beneficiary of
the action, which does not imply that his definition
is as specific and narrow as the one you're using. <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Okrand twice calls an object "the recipient of [the] action." <i>That
is not what the object of a verb is.</i> An object is the thing
that is acted upon by the subject, not that receives the action
done by the subject.<br>
<i></i></p>
<p>In Object-Verb-Subject, we are told that the object is the
recipient of the action of the verb done by the subject. Oh yeah?
<b>yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'.</b> Did the knife receive anything? <b>tlhaqwIj
chu'Ha'lu'pu'.</b> Did my chronometer receive anything? No.
Okrand's explanation of what an object is is just plain wrong.</p>
<p>Then he goes and talks about indirect objects. He doesn't define
an indirect object, but he says it can be considered the
beneficiary. That's not a definition; that's a categorization.
Whatever an indirect object is, it fits into the category of
beneficiary.</p>
<p>I'll tell you what an indirect object is (again). An indirect
object is what receives the direct object. If Okrand means
anything other than this when he says "indirect object," he has
given absolutely no indication. But he DOES dedicate a section of
the Addendum to it.<br>
<i></i></p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail-">
<p><b>jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq</b> - "I admit that
using the prefix trick with a stative verb might be too
much of a stretch."</p>
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"> </span>
<p>Why? If there's no difference between types of <b>-vaD,</b>
what could possibly be wrong with it? <i>What
distinction between that and known good examples are
you making?</i></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">The difference is that stative verbs
never have direct objects, whereas the definition of the
prefix trick mentions third-person direct objects
specifically, and the known examples of the prefix trick
include at least an implied direct object. This struck me
as a potentially significant difference. My concern has
nothing to do with<b> -vaD</b>.<span class="gmail-"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>And do you know why that feels wrong to you on intransitive
verbs? It's because in English intransitive verbs do not take
indirect objects. <b>Qu'vaD Hegh</b><i> he dies for the mission.</i>
Not an indirect object; a benefactive. Not a stative verb; an
intransitive action verb.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"> </span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<p>The reason to think that is that Okrand describes the
prefix trick for "indirect objects," not for
beneficiaries, not for benefactives, not for any noun
with <b>-vaD.</b> "Indirect objects." I see no reason
to think he uses the term "indirect object" to refer
to any kind of <b>-vaD</b> noun.</p>
</blockquote>
<div>Every time he's talked about the role of <b>-vaD </b>nouns
since TKDa, he's talked about them as indirect objects,</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>No, every time he's talked about indirect objects since the
Addendum, he's talked about words that get <b>-vaD</b> added to
them.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">There are a lot of things he could
have given more examples for, I agree. But "indirect object"
is a pretty basic concept of English syntax</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It's not a pretty basic concept. You don't get it yourself.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"> that is not obviously addressed in
the first edition of TKD,</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It is not addressed AT ALL in the first edition. AT ALL.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"> and he may have wanted to talk about
it specifically. Maybe someone bugged him about it. I can't
speak to what Okrand was thinking 30-some-odd years ago, but
I don't think any major conclusions should be drawn based on
what got included in the addendum and how it was arranged.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Everything in the Addendum comes from <i>Star Trek</i>s V and VI
and from <i>Star Trek: The Next Generation.</i> Okrand was not
yet interacting much with fans when it was published. I think he'd
given some words and phrases to <i>veS QonoS</i> by then.</p>
<p>I'm not aware of any use of <b>-vaD</b> after Valkris's <b>Qu'vaD
lI'</b> and prior to the publication of the second edition, so I
have no idea what prompted Okrand to include it in the Addendum.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">1) When you talk about "indirect
objects" (for instance, when talking about the prefix
trick), are you using it to mean all nouns with the <b>-vaD</b>
suffix? Or are there uses of <b>-vaD</b> that you don't
count as indirect objects (and therefore can't be used with
the prefix trick)? If the latter is true, what is your
definition for when a noun with <b>-vaD</b> is or isn't an
indirect object?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I've answered this over and over in this thread.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>2) Can be the prefix trick be used in all situations
with indirect objects (however those turn out to be
defined)? Or are there exceptions? Are there certain verbs
that can never take it? Is its use limited to a small
subset of verbs?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>If by "indirect objects" you mean "nouns with <b>-vaD,</b>"
which is not what I mean by it, then this is the question. I have
given my opinion and my reasons, both regarding different types of
<b>-vaD</b> nouns and different prefixes that are allowed to
participate.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>3) Can the prefix trick be used with stative verbs that
have a <b>-vaD</b> noun with them? For instance, is it
acceptable to turn the phrase <b>jIHvaD lI' De'vam</b> <i>"This
information is useful for me"</i> into <b>mulI' De'vam</b>?
If not, is it because the <b>-vaD</b> noun doesn't count
as an indirect object when used with stative verbs, or
because the prefix trick needs direct objects which
stative verbs can't have, or because of some other reason?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>This is the same question as 2.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnDdct-xYq11_cFTE2_b=iPy_DXOAKb_hALv3z6k7HbA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>(And to tie in a question from the other thread about
subtitles:)</div>
<div>4) Is the prefix trick still strictly limited to
1st/2nd-person indirect objects with 3rd-person direct
objects, as it was first described? If someone uses it
with a different arrangement of persons in a way that's
not confusing, is this acceptable, or is this considered
"intentional ungrammaticality"?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>If me talk like caveman when me hang out with me friends, do them
accept me talking this way, knowing me do it on purpose?</p>
<p>But if you agree that that's how "it was first described" (which
is what Lieven is arguing against), then there's no reason to
think anything has changed. Lieven's <i>Star Trek Discovery</i>
transcript is not canon.<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>
--------------B8C956CE39BADA2E9220E3A3--
--===============8713538243908672879==
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
--===============8713538243908672879==--
