[112042] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Topic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Mon Mar 4 13:33:43 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:33:39 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <4693a485-4eac-4f75-29f7-80728691a3e6@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============6154875957898966679==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_611A63CC-5FA9-439A-A5D4-C491F362B372"
--Apple-Mail=_611A63CC-5FA9-439A-A5D4-C491F362B372
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
See below=E2=80=A6
charghwI=E2=80=99 vaghnerya=E2=80=99ngan
rInpa=E2=80=99 bomnIS be=E2=80=99=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99 pI=E2=80=99.
> On Mar 4, 2019, at 12:54 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
> On 3/4/2019 8:27 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> But when you look at canon, Okrand puts {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} on =
nouns that are subjects and objects and are placed in the word order =
accordingly. {nuqDaq =E2=80=98oH puchpa=E2=80=99=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99?} =
That=E2=80=99s not the topic. That=E2=80=99s the subject.
> It certainly is the topic. As for the bathroom, where is it? Okrand =
goes out of his way to point out that -'e' in copulas can be translated =
this way. puchpa''e' is the topic of the sentence. It's also the =
subject, in Okrand's terminology. I actually think topic is a better =
term for it than subject, because the topic in such a sentence isn't =
actually doing any verb.
>=20
The issue here is the word=E2=80=99s placement in the sentence. If =
it=E2=80=99s not the subject, then why is it the last word in the =
sentence? All the other words with Type 5 suffix come before the verb. =
ALL the other words with Type 5 suffix ALWAYS appear before the verb. =
Even {-Daq}. ALWAYS. Only subjects follow verbs, and yes, this =E2=80=9Cve=
rb" is a pronoun, but Okrand himself says it=E2=80=99s being used as a =
verb. That=E2=80=99s why it can take certain verbal suffixes, like =
{-taH}.
There are more reasons for interpreting the word following the pronoun =
as a subject than there are for interpreting it as topic. It may very =
well be topic, but it=E2=80=99s certainly the subject, and no other Type =
5 suffix is ever presented on a subject.
Also, it=E2=80=99s use in relative clauses is commonly on the subject of =
the verb with {-bogh}. Again, this is the only Type 5 suffix ever =
applied to a subject. Please find a counterexample. I await revelation.
>> {De=E2=80=99=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 vItlhapnISpu=E2=80=99.} While the =
placement COULD be explained as topic, the verb prefix {vI-} makes it =
obvious that this is the object of the verb. His translation, =E2=80=9CI =
needed to get the INFORMATION,=E2=80=9D makes it clear that this is =
emphatic, not topic.
> I agree that this is emphasis. However, the prefix does not exclude a =
possible topic reading: As for the information, I needed to get it. It's =
got an elided pronoun: De''e' 'oH vItlhapnISpu'.
>=20
> Between this sort of equivalence, and Okrand's mixing up of the =
concepts of topic and focus, I'm not sure how important the distinction =
is in Klingon. Being a topic may automatically bring focus.
>=20
Many years ago, I thought you were wrong to suggest that Okrand=E2=80=99s =
use of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} was not to mark the topic, as he stated, =
but actually to note =E2=80=9Cemphasis=E2=80=9D, in your earlier =
arguments or =E2=80=9Cfocus=E2=80=9D in your later arguments, but =
despite my stubborn determination to accept Okrand=E2=80=99s DESCRIPTION =
instead of his examples, you argued well, and over time, I came to agree =
with you.
I=E2=80=99ll confess, it=E2=80=99s a little weird to hear you arguing =
against a point that you successfully impressed me with in the past. I =
do openly apologize for my earlier stubbornness. I think I was wrong. I =
think you were right.
The question remains as to whether or not a noun can be marked with =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} at the beginning of a sentence, like other Type 5 =
suffixed nouns, functioning as topic, but not subject or object. I know =
that the description suggests this would be the case, but I=E2=80=99m =
not sure we actually have any canon examples. Do you know of any?
If you interpret that last word of sentence in a =E2=80=9Cto-be=E2=80=9D =
use of a pronoun-as-verb to be subject, then all examples of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=
=80=99} given that I can recall involve it being applied to subjects or =
objects. Despite the opportunity to use it to mark the topic as a =
non-subject, non-object at the beginning of a sentence implied by the =
description, I don=E2=80=99t remember actually seeing this anywhere in =
canon. Admittedly, I=E2=80=99m no canon expert. Surely, someone who is =
could come up with an example, right?
>> In Klingon, were we to see a noun at the beginning of a sentence that =
has {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} on it and has no other grammatical =
explanation for its placement, I suggest that would indicate topic, =
while adding {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} to a noun that is placed as subject =
or object of a clause is acting as emphasis instead of topic.
> A noun with -'e' at the beginning that isn't an object must be a =
topic. A noun with -'e' somewhere else might or might not be topic.
>=20
That=E2=80=99s my belief, though again, I haven=E2=80=99t seen that case =
occur of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} used as expected, given the grammatical =
description.
> Take, for instance, HaqwI''e' DaH yISam Find the SURGEON now! On the =
one hand, it seems to be describing emphasis. On the other hand, it =
deliberately puts what was the object of the sentence (DaH HaqwI' yISam) =
and puts it in front of the adverbial where it can't possibly be =
interpreted as an object, but it can be interpreted as a topic.
>=20
Ah.
Okay.
Good.
That=E2=80=99s the revelation I was looking for. Thank you=E2=80=A6 =
except that it also is obviously the direct object. In ASL, the topic is =
often the direct object, and it is marked with raised eyebrows, just =
like Klingon marks the topic with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}.=20
So, it=E2=80=99s not quite the example I was looking for. It=E2=80=99s =
pretty close, though. Nice work.
> So is it just a migrated object that's just emphasized? Has it gone =
into that "header" space of syntactic nouns and adverbials where it's =
acting like a topic? As for the surgeon, find him now! is a valid =
translation of the sentence, and Okrand does say that the object has =
been topicalized. I don't think you can deliver any pronouncements here; =
the waters are too murky.
>=20
True. This is why I suspect this is a topic Okrand could do well to =
clarify. I wish he would. If someone has access to him, they might make =
good use of that limited access to suggest that we=E2=80=99d appreciate =
more detail here on proper usage. But, that=E2=80=99s my priority. Maybe =
this doesn=E2=80=99t bother anybody else. I can accept that.
>> As an example, when a relative clause has both subject and object, we =
optionally have the use of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} to mark the head noun:
>>=20
>> puq qIppu=E2=80=99bogh yaS vIngu=E2=80=99.
>>=20
>> This could mean either =E2=80=9CI identified the officer who hit the =
child,=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CI identified the child who was hit by the =
officer.=E2=80=9D If I want to make sure you understand, I could say, =
{puq qIppu=E2=80=99bogh yaS=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 vIngu=E2=80=99.}
>>=20
>> Note that Okrand often does not use this tool in canon, leaving =
context to suggest whether the subject or object of the relative clause =
is the head noun. To me, that suggests that this use is more of an =
emphatic than topic marker.
> The disambiguating -'e' is strictly focus, not topic.
>=20
I likely know less linguistic jargon than you do. That=E2=80=99s not a =
dig. Jargon is useful, and if I want to talk with linguists, I ought to =
learn more of it.
>> Also, there is no grammatical explanation for how a noun could have a =
Type 5 suffix and yet its position in the sentence is not dictated by =
the rule that nouns with Type 5 suffix must appear before the object of =
the verb to which it applies. Obviously, there=E2=80=99s something going =
on here that Okrand has not described well.
> The rule does not say that a noun with a type 5 suffix must appear =
before the object. It says that nouns that appear before the object =
usually have type 5 suffixes. We have lots of examples of nouns =
appearing before the object that aren't marked with any suffix: they're =
all time expressions (e.g., DaHjaj nom Soppu' Today they ate quickly).
>=20
Point taken.
But my point was not that you need a Type 5 to appear before the object. =
My point is that the normal position for nouns with Type 5 is before the =
object, and {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is exceptional to that norm. Even =
{-Daq}, which doesn=E2=80=99t precede the object because it applies to =
the object never applies to a word following the verb it=E2=80=99s noun =
is grammatically linked to.
>> For myself, I would not be surprised if there were two different =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} suffixes. One is the one Okrand describes in the =
grammar section of TKD and the other is the one he uses in perhaps all =
of his canon examples. This second one is not a true Type 5 suffix =
because the addition of this suffix has no effect on word placement.
> I think the difference between topic and focus or emphasis in Klingon =
is simply not very sharp, and the ideas are related. It is always a true =
type 5 suffix, though, because there is no prohibition against putting =
type 5 suffixes on subjects or objects. You simply need a verb whose =
arguments support such a notion. There is no difficulty in understanding =
a verb whose subject or object include the syntactic notion of emphasis =
or topic.
>=20
Likely, this is the root of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}=E2=80=99s =
exceptionalism.=20
>> There are really only two reasons for calling this a Type 5 suffix:
>>=20
>> 1. You can=E2=80=99t use it with other Type 5 suffixes.
>>=20
>> 2. It is always the last suffix on the noun.
> 3. It describes a syntactic role for nouns.
>=20
> 4. It migrates to the ends of verbs modifying nouns.
>=20
Good. Well done. You are right, though #3 is the murky one. Likely, the =
murkiness is over the apparent lack of focus (so to speak) over the =
difference between topic and focus.
>> So, the real question is which of the following is true:
>>=20
>> 1. There are two different noun suffixes, one of which is a true Type =
5 suffix, affecting the word placement of the noun in the sentence, =
marking the topic of the sentence, and the other which is the noun =
equivalent of a verbal =E2=80=9Crover=E2=80=9D suffix (not that the =
suffix can rove among noun suffixes, but that the noun to which the =
suffix is applied can rove to whatever position in the sentence is =
appropriate, different than any other Type 5 suffix), indicating =
emphasis and not topic.
>>=20
>> 2. The grammatical description of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is =
fundamentally flawed because it fails to explicitly describe that =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} never affects word placement in the sentence as =
all other Type 5 noun suffixes do, and {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} acts ONLY =
as emphatic and NEVER as topic. Okrand is apparently confused about the =
grammatical difference between topic and emphatic, or he oddly decided =
that while he understands the difference, his target audience doesn=E2=80=99=
t understand the difference, and perhaps we would understand the word =
=E2=80=9Ctopic=E2=80=9D while we would be confused by the term =
=E2=80=9Cemphatic=E2=80=9D.
> 3. -'e' works pretty much like every other syntactic noun suffix, =
applying a syntactic role to its noun. That role can be interpreted as =
emphasis, focus, or topic, depending on how it's used. The fact that =
it's a required role in an unusual position in the copula construction =
doesn't change its nature; that's a quirk of copulas, not of -'e'.
>=20
> I think you're trying to force Klingon to conform to patterns you've =
already decided on, but it's not that rigid. Dare I say that Klingon is =
not a code?
>=20
Again, well done. I accept this as a good argument, well stated.
>> In any case, this is without question the least well described suffix =
in TKD.
> -ghach is the least-well described suffix in TKD. It has subsequently =
been better described. -meH is also a contender for problematical =
understanding.
>=20
I=E2=80=99d still put {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} high on the list, simply =
because of the lack of examples of it being used on nouns that are the =
topic of a sentence, but not subject or object, and to better explain =
why it is so different from other Type 5 suffixes in terms of word =
order. The example you gave of the moved adverbial would be insightful =
were it to be directly addressed with the word order explained to =
provide a better guideline for us, as we construct our own Klingon =
sentences.
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name =
<http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--Apple-Mail=_611A63CC-5FA9-439A-A5D4-C491F362B372
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; line-break: after-white-space;" class=3D"">See =
below=E2=80=A6<div class=3D""><br class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: =
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=3D""><div =
style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: =
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: =
none;">charghwI=E2=80=99 vaghnerya=E2=80=99ngan<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">rInpa=E2=80=99 bomnIS be=E2=80=99=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99 =
pI=E2=80=99.</div><div style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, =
0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: =
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; =
text-decoration: none;" class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Mar 4, 2019, at 12:54 PM, SuStel <<a =
href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" =
class=3D"">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D"">
=20
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUTF-8" class=3D"">
=20
<div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D"">
<div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 3/4/2019 8:27 AM, Will Martin =
wrote:<br class=3D"">
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com" class=3D"">
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUTF-8" class=3D"">
But when you look at canon, Okrand puts {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} on =
nouns that are
subjects and objects and are placed in the word order accordingly.
{nuqDaq =E2=80=98oH puchpa=E2=80=99=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99?} That=E2=80=99=
s not the topic. That=E2=80=99s the subject.</blockquote><p class=3D"">It =
certainly is the topic. <i class=3D"">As for the bathroom, where is =
it?</i>
Okrand goes out of his way to point out that <b class=3D"">-'e'</b> =
in
copulas can be translated this way. <b class=3D"">puchpa''e'</b> =
is the
topic of the sentence. It's also the subject, in Okrand's
terminology. I actually think <i class=3D"">topic</i> is a better =
term for
it than <i class=3D"">subject,</i> because the topic in such a =
sentence
isn't actually <i class=3D"">doing</i> any =
verb.</p></div></div></blockquote><div>The issue here is the word=E2=80=99=
s placement in the sentence. If it=E2=80=99s not the subject, then why =
is it the last word in the sentence? All the other words with Type 5 =
suffix come before the verb. ALL the other words with Type 5 suffix =
ALWAYS appear before the verb. Even {-Daq}. ALWAYS. Only subjects follow =
verbs, and yes, this =E2=80=9Cverb" is a pronoun, but Okrand himself =
says it=E2=80=99s being used as a verb. That=E2=80=99s why it can take =
certain verbal suffixes, like {-taH}.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>There are more reasons for interpreting the word =
following the pronoun as a subject than there are for interpreting it as =
topic. It may very well be topic, but it=E2=80=99s certainly the =
subject, and no other Type 5 suffix is ever presented on a =
subject.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>Also, it=E2=80=99s use in =
relative clauses is commonly on the subject of the verb with {-bogh}. =
Again, this is the only Type 5 suffix ever applied to a subject. Please =
find a counterexample. I await revelation.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote=
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div text=3D"#000000" =
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D"">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com" class=3D""> =
{De=E2=80=99=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99
vItlhapnISpu=E2=80=99.} While the placement COULD be explained as =
topic,
the verb prefix {vI-} makes it obvious that this is the object of
the verb. His translation, =E2=80=9CI needed to get the =
INFORMATION,=E2=80=9D
makes it clear that this is emphatic, not topic.</blockquote><p =
class=3D"">I agree that this is emphasis. However, the prefix does not
exclude a possible topic reading: <i class=3D"">As for the =
information, I
needed to get it.</i> It's got an elided pronoun: <b =
class=3D"">De''e' 'oH
vItlhapnISpu'.</b></p><p class=3D"">Between this sort of =
equivalence, and Okrand's mixing up of the
concepts of topic and focus, I'm not sure how important the
distinction is in Klingon. Being a topic may automatically bring
focus.</p></div></div></blockquote><div>Many years ago, I thought =
you were wrong to suggest that Okrand=E2=80=99s use of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99=
} was not to mark the topic, as he stated, but actually to note =
=E2=80=9Cemphasis=E2=80=9D, in your earlier arguments or =E2=80=9Cfocus=E2=
=80=9D in your later arguments, but despite my stubborn determination to =
accept Okrand=E2=80=99s DESCRIPTION instead of his examples, you argued =
well, and over time, I came to agree with you.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>I=E2=80=99ll confess, it=E2=80=99s a little weird =
to hear you arguing against a point that you successfully impressed me =
with in the past. I do openly apologize for my earlier stubbornness. I =
think I was wrong. I think you were right.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>The question remains as to whether or not a noun =
can be marked with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} at the beginning of a =
sentence, like other Type 5 suffixed nouns, functioning as topic, but =
not subject or object. I know that the description suggests this would =
be the case, but I=E2=80=99m not sure we actually have any canon =
examples. Do you know of any?</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>If you =
interpret that last word of sentence in a =E2=80=9Cto-be=E2=80=9D use of =
a pronoun-as-verb to be subject, then all examples of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99=
} given that I can recall involve it being applied to subjects or =
objects. Despite the opportunity to use it to mark the topic as a =
non-subject, non-object at the beginning of a sentence implied by the =
description, I don=E2=80=99t remember actually seeing this anywhere in =
canon. Admittedly, I=E2=80=99m no canon expert. Surely, someone who is =
could come up with an example, right?</div><br class=3D""><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" =
class=3D"">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com" class=3D"">In
Klingon, were we to see a noun at the beginning of a sentence that
has {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} on it and has no other grammatical =
explanation for its
placement, I suggest that would indicate topic, while adding
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} to a noun that is placed as subject or =
object of a clause
is acting as emphasis instead of topic.</blockquote><p class=3D"">A =
noun with <b class=3D"">-'e' </b>at the beginning that isn't an object
must be a topic. A noun with <b class=3D"">-'e'</b> somewhere else =
might or
might not be topic.</p></div></blockquote><div>That=E2=80=99s my =
belief, though again, I haven=E2=80=99t seen that case occur of =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} used as expected, given the grammatical =
description.</div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D""><p class=3D"">Take, for =
instance, <b class=3D"">HaqwI''e' DaH yISam</b><i class=3D""> Find the
SURGEON now!</i> On the one hand, it seems to be describing
emphasis. On the other hand, it deliberately puts what was the
object of the sentence <b class=3D"">(DaH HaqwI' yISam)</b> and =
puts it in
front of the adverbial where it can't possibly be interpreted as
an object, but it <i class=3D"">can</i> be interpreted as a =
topic.</p></div></blockquote>Ah.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>Okay.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>Good.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>That=E2=80=
=99s the revelation I was looking for. Thank you=E2=80=A6 except that it =
also is obviously the direct object. In ASL, the topic is often the =
direct object, and it is marked with raised eyebrows, just like Klingon =
marks the topic with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}. </div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>So, it=E2=80=99s not quite the example I was =
looking for. It=E2=80=99s pretty close, though. Nice work.<br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div text=3D"#000000" =
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D""><p class=3D"">So is it just a migrated =
object that's just emphasized? Has it
gone into that "header" space of syntactic nouns and adverbials
where it's acting like a topic? <i class=3D"">As for the surgeon, =
find him
now!</i> is a valid translation of the sentence, and Okrand does
say that the object has been topicalized. I don't think you can
deliver any pronouncements here; the waters are too =
murky.</p></div></blockquote><div>True. This is why I suspect this is a =
topic Okrand could do well to clarify. I wish he would. If someone has =
access to him, they might make good use of that limited access to =
suggest that we=E2=80=99d appreciate more detail here on proper usage. =
But, that=E2=80=99s my priority. Maybe this doesn=E2=80=99t bother =
anybody else. I can accept that.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" =
class=3D"">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com" class=3D"">
<div class=3D"">As an example, when a relative clause has both
subject and object, we optionally have the use of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=
=99} to mark
the head noun:</div>
<div class=3D""><br class=3D"">
</div>
<div class=3D"">puq qIppu=E2=80=99bogh yaS vIngu=E2=80=99.</div>
<div class=3D""><br class=3D"">
</div>
<div class=3D"">This could mean either =E2=80=9CI identified the =
officer who
hit the child,=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CI identified the child who =
was hit by the
officer.=E2=80=9D If I want to make sure you understand, I could =
say,
{puq qIppu=E2=80=99bogh yaS=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 vIngu=E2=80=99.}</d=
iv>
<div class=3D""><br class=3D"">
</div>
<div class=3D"">Note that Okrand often does not use this tool in
canon, leaving context to suggest whether the subject or object
of the relative clause is the head noun. To me, that suggests
that this use is more of an emphatic than topic marker. </div>
</blockquote><p class=3D"">The disambiguating <b class=3D"">-'e'</b> =
is strictly focus, not topic.</p></div></blockquote>I likely know less =
linguistic jargon than you do. That=E2=80=99s not a dig. Jargon is =
useful, and if I want to talk with linguists, I ought to learn more of =
it.</div><div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D"">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com" class=3D"">
<div class=3D"">Also, there is no grammatical explanation for how =
a
noun could have a Type 5 suffix and yet its position in the
sentence is not dictated by the rule that nouns with Type 5
suffix must appear before the object of the verb to which it
applies. Obviously, there=E2=80=99s something going on here that =
Okrand
has not described well.</div>
</blockquote><p class=3D"">The rule does not say that a noun with a =
type 5 suffix must
appear before the object. It says that nouns that appear before
the object usually have type 5 suffixes. We have lots of examples
of nouns appearing before the object that aren't marked with any
suffix: they're all time expressions (e.g., <b class=3D"">DaHjaj =
nom Soppu'</b><i class=3D"">
Today they ate quickly</i>).</p></div></blockquote><div>Point =
taken.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>But my point was not that you =
need a Type 5 to appear before the object. My point is that the normal =
position for nouns with Type 5 is before the object, and {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=
=99} is exceptional to that norm. Even {-Daq}, which doesn=E2=80=99t =
precede the object because it applies to the object never applies to a =
word following the verb it=E2=80=99s noun is grammatically linked =
to.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D"">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com" class=3D"">
<div class=3D"">For myself, I would not be surprised if there were
two different {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} suffixes. One is the one =
Okrand describes
in the grammar section of TKD and the other is the one he uses
in perhaps all of his canon examples. This second one is not a
true Type 5 suffix because the addition of this suffix has no
effect on word placement.</div>
</blockquote><p class=3D"">I think the difference between topic and =
focus or emphasis in
Klingon is simply not very sharp, and the ideas are related. It is
always a true type 5 suffix, though, because there is no
prohibition against putting type 5 suffixes on subjects or
objects. You simply need a verb whose arguments support such a
notion. There is no difficulty in understanding a verb whose
subject or object include the syntactic notion of emphasis or
topic.</p></div></blockquote><div>Likely, this is the root of =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}=E2=80=99s exceptionalism. </div><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div text=3D"#000000" =
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D"">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com" class=3D"">
<div class=3D"">There are really only two reasons for calling this =
a
Type 5 suffix:</div>
<div class=3D""><br class=3D"">
</div>
<div class=3D"">1. You can=E2=80=99t use it with other Type 5 =
suffixes.</div>
<div class=3D""><br class=3D"">
</div>
<div class=3D"">2. It is always the last suffix on the noun.</div>
</blockquote><p class=3D"">3. It describes a syntactic role for =
nouns.</p><p class=3D"">4. It migrates to the ends of verbs modifying =
nouns.</p></div></blockquote><div>Good. Well done. You are right, though =
#3 is the murky one. Likely, the murkiness is over the apparent lack of =
focus (so to speak) over the difference between topic and =
focus.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D"">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com" class=3D"">
<div class=3D"">So, the real question is which of the following is
true:</div>
<div class=3D""><br class=3D"">
</div>
<div class=3D"">1. There are two different noun suffixes, one of
which is a true Type 5 suffix, affecting the word placement of
the noun in the sentence, marking the topic of the sentence, and
the other which is the noun equivalent of a verbal =E2=80=9Crover=E2=
=80=9D
suffix (not that the suffix can rove among noun suffixes, but
that the noun to which the suffix is applied can rove to
whatever position in the sentence is appropriate, different than
any other Type 5 suffix), indicating emphasis and not =
topic.</div>
<div class=3D""><br class=3D"">
</div>
<div class=3D"">2. The grammatical description of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=
=99} is
fundamentally flawed because it fails to explicitly describe
that {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} never affects word placement in the =
sentence as all
other Type 5 noun suffixes do, and {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} acts =
ONLY as emphatic
and NEVER as topic. Okrand is apparently confused about the
grammatical difference between topic and emphatic, or he oddly
decided that while he understands the difference, his target
audience doesn=E2=80=99t understand the difference, and perhaps =
we would
understand the word =E2=80=9Ctopic=E2=80=9D while we would be =
confused by the
term =E2=80=9Cemphatic=E2=80=9D.</div>
</blockquote><p class=3D"">3. <b class=3D"">-'e'</b> works pretty =
much like every other syntactic noun
suffix, applying a syntactic role to its noun. That role can be
interpreted as emphasis, focus, or topic, depending on how it's
used. The fact that it's a required role in an unusual position in
the copula construction doesn't change its nature; that's a quirk
of copulas, not of <b class=3D"">-'e'.</b></p><p class=3D"">I =
think you're trying to force Klingon to conform to patterns
you've already decided on, but it's not that rigid. Dare I say
that Klingon is not a code?</p></div></blockquote><div>Again, well =
done. I accept this as a good argument, well stated.</div><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div text=3D"#000000" =
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D"">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com" class=3D"">
<div class=3D"">In any case, this is without question the least =
well
described suffix in TKD.<br class=3D"">
</div>
</blockquote><p class=3D""><b class=3D"">-ghach</b> is the =
least-well described suffix in TKD. It has
subsequently been better described. <b class=3D"">-meH</b> is also =
a
contender for problematical understanding.<br =
class=3D""></p></div></blockquote>I=E2=80=99d still put {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=
=99} high on the list, simply because of the lack of examples of it =
being used on nouns that are the topic of a sentence, but not subject or =
object, and to better explain why it is so different from other Type 5 =
suffixes in terms of word order. The example you gave of the moved =
adverbial would be insightful were it to be directly addressed with the =
word order explained to provide a better guideline for us, as we =
construct our own Klingon sentences.<br class=3D""><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" =
class=3D""><p class=3D"">
</p>
<pre class=3D"moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20
SuStel
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" =
href=3D"http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">tlhIngan-Hol=
mailing list<br class=3D""><a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" =
class=3D"">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br =
class=3D"">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br =
class=3D""></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_611A63CC-5FA9-439A-A5D4-C491F362B372--
--===============6154875957898966679==
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
--===============6154875957898966679==--
