[112041] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Topic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Mar 4 13:25:15 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:25:12 -0500
In-Reply-To: <311A2584-B414-40C1-864D-C2A62A56712E@mac.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============7977243354634583583==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------80F54F5208C858AF3EAE579B"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------80F54F5208C858AF3EAE579B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 3/4/2019 12:56 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> juHDaq vIghoS. (Same meaning as {juH vIghoS}, and not grammatically
> incorrect, though there was a sense that this is typically less
> preferable to {juH vIghoS}.
Specifically, Okrand says in TKD that "if the locative suffix is used
with such verbs, the resulting sentence is somewhat redundant, but not
out-and-out wrong."
> juHDaq ghoS HoD Qanqor. (Okay, so which does this mean? The prefix
> doesn’t make it clear. It could be either. You need context to
> disambiguate. I’ve heard from people how much they don’t mind
> ambiguity that I don’t need reminding again. Still, you have to
> confess this is messier. Language is messy sometimes. I get that.
> Meanwhile, that doesn’t make messiness any more noble or preferable.
If you were about to say this sentence you'd realize the ambiguity and
say it a different way. People do this all the time in any language:
they say something, realize it's ambiguous, and say it again slightly
differently so that it's not ambiguous.
K1: *juHDaq ghoS HoD Qanqor.
*K2: *jIyajbe'. juHDaq ghaHtaH'a' HoD Qanqor'e' yIttaHvIS?
*K1: *ghobe'; **juH ghoS HoD Qanqor.*
The solution to the messiness is not to say things like that in the
first place, and that's what real people do every day.
> Furthermore, I suggest that putting {-Daq} on the direct object of
> these special verbs probably is technically an error, but it’s such a
> common error that nobody counts it as an error anymore, very much like
> omitting the verb prefix {lu-} in the many canon examples that we have
> where it should have been there, but Okrand obviously forgot,
> especially the many examples of {tu’lu’} that technically should have
> been {lutu’lu’}.
You can suggest that, but it directly contradicts what Okrand said about
it. An error that nobody counts as an error anymore is not an error, and
it's only an error to you because you've got this mental map of where
*-Daq* nouns are allowed to go that forbids them from going on objects,
even though no rule ever said that they can't go on objects.
Dropping of *lu-* /is/ counted as an error, because some Klingons still
consider it an error. So far as we know, all Klingons recognize it as an
error, but it gets commonly made. Even the hippest youngster might
consider it a slip-up:
K3: *DujwIj muSHa'chu' be'pu'! va... DujwIj *lu*muSHa'chu' be'pu'.*
> I do get your point, that topicalization can also possibly occur on a
> noun that also functions as a subject or object, but my problem, which
> you don’t show great evidence of acknowledging, is that except for
> {-‘e’} and the weird case of {-Daq}, in what could arguably be cases
> or marginal grammatical correctness, we don’t have examples of Type 5
> suffixed nouns appearing in positions of subject or object. Even
> {-Daq} never appears on a subject in canon, and it never appears on
> the object in canon for any verbs EXCEPT for those special ones that
> assume location when the direct object doesn’t have {-Daq}.
There are no words for which such combinations make sense. That they
don't appear in other meanings doesn't make the meanings they do appear
in strange.
I could invent such a word. *foo* means /location of the noun is big./
Not that the noun is big, the location of the noun is big. *foo
qachDaq*/the location of the building is big./ Now, we don't actually
need such a word, because we have the noun *Daq* that we can use in
noun-noun constructions *(tIn qach Daq)*, but the point remains that the
meaning of this is not strange. Klingon doesn't forbid syntactic nouns
in these positions; it just doesn't /need/ most syntactic nouns in these
positions. And when it does, it uses them.
> Typically, the addition of Type 5 suffix on a noun DEFINES the noun’s
> grammatical function, and assigns its place in the word order of the
> clause in which it participates. This is the thing that is radically
> different about {-‘e’}, and Okrand makes no effort to describe this in
> his grammatical description.
There is no rule that says "subject" and "location" are grammatically
incompatible. It's just that Klingon doesn't need to combine such ideas,
so it doesn't. There is also no rule that says that "subject" and
"topic" are grammatically incompatible, and Klingon /does/ allow you to
combine these roles.
> Yes, he lathers it thickly among canon examples, but there is a place
> he should have explicitly explained {-‘e’}’s unique rules of use among
> Type 5 suffixes, and he completely ignored that opportunity or
> responsibility. We’re just supposed to figure it out on our own from
> canon.
Which we have done. Again, it's not that *-'e'* works differently; it's
just that the meaning of *-'e'* may be applied to other syntactic roles
as well. And the syntactic roles of /location/ and /object/ are also
known to be compatible under certain circumstances.
> I suggest that there is nothing else in the language that gets more
> canon examples with more scant and inaccurate grammatical description
> than {-‘e’}. He either made a mistake in the description or by
> omission providing an incomplete description, and he’s never made an
> effort to return to the topic (so to speak) to clarify exactly how
> {-‘e’} is supposed to work.
While more explanation is always welcome, this is an area that is pretty
well understood. *-'e'* has meanings including topic, focus, and
emphasis, and its use in the sentence determines how to interpret it. It
can be applied to subjects and objects because there is no conflict
between the meaning of subject or object and topic, focus, or emphasis.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------80F54F5208C858AF3EAE579B
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 3/4/2019 12:56 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:311A2584-B414-40C1-864D-C2A62A56712E@mac.com">juHDaq
vIghoS. (Same meaning as {juH vIghoS}, and not grammatically
incorrect, though there was a sense that this is typically less
preferable to {juH vIghoS}.</blockquote>
<p>Specifically, Okrand says in TKD that "if the locative suffix is
used with such verbs, the resulting sentence is somewhat
redundant, but not out-and-out wrong."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:311A2584-B414-40C1-864D-C2A62A56712E@mac.com">juHDaq
ghoS HoD Qanqor. (Okay, so which does this mean? The prefix
doesn’t make it clear. It could be either. You need context to
disambiguate. I’ve heard from people how much they don’t mind
ambiguity that I don’t need reminding again. Still, you have to
confess this is messier. Language is messy sometimes. I get that.
Meanwhile, that doesn’t make messiness any more noble or
preferable.</blockquote>
<p>If you were about to say this sentence you'd realize the
ambiguity and say it a different way. People do this all the time
in any language: they say something, realize it's ambiguous, and
say it again slightly differently so that it's not ambiguous.</p>
<p>K1: <b>juHDaq ghoS HoD Qanqor.<br>
</b>K2: <b>jIyajbe'. juHDaq ghaHtaH'a' HoD Qanqor'e' yIttaHvIS?<br>
</b>K1: <b>ghobe'; </b><b>juH ghoS HoD Qanqor.</b></p>
<p>The solution to the messiness is not to say things like that in
the first place, and that's what real people do every day.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:311A2584-B414-40C1-864D-C2A62A56712E@mac.com">
<div class="">Furthermore, I suggest that putting {-Daq} on the
direct object of these special verbs probably is technically an
error, but it’s such a common error that nobody counts it as an
error anymore, very much like omitting the verb prefix {lu-} in
the many canon examples that we have where it should have been
there, but Okrand obviously forgot, especially the many examples
of {tu’lu’} that technically should have been {lutu’lu’}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You can suggest that, but it directly contradicts what Okrand
said about it. An error that nobody counts as an error anymore is
not an error, and it's only an error to you because you've got
this mental map of where <b>-Daq</b> nouns are allowed to go that
forbids them from going on objects, even though no rule ever said
that they can't go on objects.</p>
<p>Dropping of <b>lu-</b> <i>is</i> counted as an error, because
some Klingons still consider it an error. So far as we know, all
Klingons recognize it as an error, but it gets commonly made. Even
the hippest youngster might consider it a slip-up:</p>
<p>K3: <b>DujwIj muSHa'chu' be'pu'! va... DujwIj *lu*muSHa'chu'
be'pu'.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:311A2584-B414-40C1-864D-C2A62A56712E@mac.com">
<div class="">I do get your point, that topicalization can also
possibly occur on a noun that also functions as a subject or
object, but my problem, which you don’t show great evidence of
acknowledging, is that except for {-‘e’} and the weird case of
{-Daq}, in what could arguably be cases or marginal grammatical
correctness, we don’t have examples of Type 5 suffixed nouns
appearing in positions of subject or object. Even {-Daq} never
appears on a subject in canon, and it never appears on the
object in canon for any verbs EXCEPT for those special ones that
assume location when the direct object doesn’t have {-Daq}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There are no words for which such combinations make sense. That
they don't appear in other meanings doesn't make the meanings they
do appear in strange.</p>
<p>I could invent such a word. <b>foo</b> means <i>location of the
noun is big.</i> Not that the noun is big, the location of the
noun is big. <b>foo qachDaq</b><i> the location of the building
is big.</i> Now, we don't actually need such a word, because we
have the noun <b>Daq</b> that we can use in noun-noun
constructions <b>(tIn qach Daq)</b>, but the point remains that
the meaning of this is not strange. Klingon doesn't forbid
syntactic nouns in these positions; it just doesn't <i>need</i>
most syntactic nouns in these positions. And when it does, it uses
them.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:311A2584-B414-40C1-864D-C2A62A56712E@mac.com">
<div class="">Typically, the addition of Type 5 suffix on a noun
DEFINES the noun’s grammatical function, and assigns its place
in the word order of the clause in which it participates. This
is the thing that is radically different about {-‘e’}, and
Okrand makes no effort to describe this in his grammatical
description.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no rule that says "subject" and "location" are
grammatically incompatible. It's just that Klingon doesn't need to
combine such ideas, so it doesn't. There is also no rule that says
that "subject" and "topic" are grammatically incompatible, and
Klingon <i>does</i> allow you to combine these roles.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:311A2584-B414-40C1-864D-C2A62A56712E@mac.com">
<div class=""> Yes, he lathers it thickly among canon examples,
but there is a place he should have explicitly explained
{-‘e’}’s unique rules of use among Type 5 suffixes, and he
completely ignored that opportunity or responsibility. We’re
just supposed to figure it out on our own from canon.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Which we have done. Again, it's not that <b>-'e'</b> works
differently; it's just that the meaning of <b>-'e'</b> may be
applied to other syntactic roles as well. And the syntactic roles
of <i>location</i> and <i>object</i> are also known to be
compatible under certain circumstances.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:311A2584-B414-40C1-864D-C2A62A56712E@mac.com">
<div class="">I suggest that there is nothing else in the language
that gets more canon examples with more scant and inaccurate
grammatical description than {-‘e’}. He either made a mistake in
the description or by omission providing an incomplete
description, and he’s never made an effort to return to the
topic (so to speak) to clarify exactly how {-‘e’} is supposed to
work.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>While more explanation is always welcome, this is an area that is
pretty well understood. <b>-'e'</b> has meanings including topic,
focus, and emphasis, and its use in the sentence determines how to
interpret it. It can be applied to subjects and objects because
there is no conflict between the meaning of subject or object and
topic, focus, or emphasis.<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>
--------------80F54F5208C858AF3EAE579B--
--===============7977243354634583583==
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
--===============7977243354634583583==--
