[1831] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: DoublePredicateCausitives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Oct 22 09:20:50 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 23:17:26 +1000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To: <01H4EIT4PUTE91W4BJ@delphi.com> from "DSTRADER@delphi.com" at Oct
22, 93 06:49:40 am
To DSTRADER@delphi.com respond I thus:
#English: "[A] cause [B] to [verb] [C]." (I cause the kids to learn biology.)
#Klingon: {[C] [verb] [B] 'e' qaSmoH [A]} (yInQeD lughoj puqpu' 'e' vIqaSmoH)
#MarkShoulson, however, doesn't buy this idea. He suggested that indirect
#objects using {-vaD} are more likely used in such double predicates.
#"I feed him qagh." - {ghaHvaD qagh vIje'}
#This is evident by the fact that {je'} = {SopmoH}.
#But would a Klingon really say {ghaHvaD qagh vISopmoH}.
#Shoulson thinks so, of course, but I find it confusing as to whether
#the object of {je'} is supposed to be a food or the thing that eats the food.
#I would venture to say it's not both. Even tho it does make sense (to us
#Terrans) to say either {qagh vIje'} or {ghaH vIje'}. I don't quite like
#this, because if you said {qagh vISopmoH}, you would definitely get
#several peculiar sneers from any nearby Klingons. It just doesn't
#make sense to use {je'} or {SopmoH} without stating the thing that eats.
Though normally I like Guido's postings a lot, this one makes me say "Que'?"
He's really arguing by fiat here. Terran languages are ambiguous as to
whether the DO (direct object) of a causitive is the DO or the Subject of
the base verb; if one of them *is* an indirect object, it'll be the Subject
of the base. It would probably be neater to follow through Mark's suggestion
and make the base subject the indirect object; it makes a kind of semantic
sense, and evidence shouldn't be hard to come by.
Guido disputes this, but I don't like the grounds, which are in essence
that Klingons would sneer at the ambiguity. 1. {qagh vISopmoH} vs.
{tera'nganvaD vISopmoH} takes away the ambiguity: always make the base DO
the DO, and the base S the IO; 2. What's this business of it not making
sense to elide the eater? Human languages vary enormously in what they
allow as elidable; what doesn't make sense as an elision in one language
does so in another. In any case, {qagh vISopmoH} corresponds for me to
"I get (people/animals/him) to eat qagh"; not *that* anomalous. Which
leads me to the question, can we have zero anaphora in Klingon? If vI-
means I-it rather than I-to-him, can we leave out the ghaHvaD and just
say {qagh vISopmoH}? It seems quite sensible to me to do so, but Hol is
notorious for not being 'sensible'... 3. The Klingons would sneer? You
know this on whose authority? Because the phrase is 'ambiguous' (says who?)
Because it's not 'logical'? KLINGON? LOGICAL?!
:)
#Also, again comparing our constructions, think about this sentence:
#"Keep the bugs away from the control panel."/
#"Cause the bugs to stay away from the control panel."
#My method: {SeHlaw luDoHtaH ghewmey 'e' yIqaSmoH}.
#MShoulson's method: {ghewmeyvaD SeHlaw yIDoHmoHtaH}*
#If {qagh vISopmoH} brings a sneer of cynicism to a Klingon's face,
#that latter sentence would most likely evoke slight violence in
#contempt for someone who would slaughter tlhIngan Hol like that.
#It doesn't remain consistent for all causitives. Maybe it works
#with {ghojmoH}, but it certainly doesn't work with {DoHmoH} or,
#say, {leghmoH}:
First, noone claimed Mark's method had complete generality. Sure, yours
might, but there are good pragmatic reasons why yours wouldn't actually be
used that often (languages tend to avoid complex grammatical structures
in favour of simple ones, and my guess is, Klingon isn't at home with
much grammatical complexity.) In fact, look at your translations. "Keep away"
quite transparently maps to "cause to be away". Second: who says {ghewmeyvaD
SeHlaw yIDoHmoHtaH} would cause violence? Again, you're arguing by fiat.
Maybe Klingon embraces this indirect-object regularity enthusiastically
--- who's to say the phrase isn't perfectly acceptable? In the absence of
any evidence, we'll use {'e' yIqaSmoH}; but if you think the {-vaD} form
shouldn't be used *anywhere* because it isn't used *everywhere*, well,
methinks you have a little pragmatics to learn...
#My stupid sister caused everyone to look at us.
#{HochvaD maH nuleghmoHpu' be'nI'wI'}
Again, not everything that can be expressed as a single causitive verb, is.
On the other hand, who are you to say which verbs *can* be in Klingon?
Esperanto has the following phrase as exemplary in its grammatical description
of its version of -moH:
li sentigos al vi sian skurgxon
tlhIHvaD "scourge" X"feel"moH
where X is the appropriate verb prefix (either he-you_plural or he_it).
In English, it doesn't make any sense to say "he will feel-ify his scourge
to you", so by your argument it doesn't in Klingon either. And I tell you
it does in Esperanto. So why shouldn't it in Klingon?
#Shoulson argued that Hebrew does make use of indir.obj.s with its
#causitive form of "to teach."
#[Shoulson]vaD vIjatlh tlhIngan Hol 'oHbe'qu'bej [Hebrew]'e'
This line of argument ALWAYS infuriates me, especially when it is used to
"rebut" people who have good cross-linguistic ideas, like Mark and Frogguy.
Yeah, sure Klingon isn't Hebrew or Bislama. It also isn't Cree, but it has
subject/object prefixes; it isn't Hixyarana, but it has OVS. The fact that it
isn't any other language doesn't stop it from possibly resembling some
languages in some ways (let's get real here: you really think Okrand made
the thing up in a typological vacuum?); and if people from non-English
backgrounds have ideas about Klingon, the others had best come up with a
more substantial argument against them than this.
Given the woeful underspecification of Hol, the real question is: can we
allow the extension of -vaD to *all* causatives? Our intuitions would
suggest not; but our intuitions are shaky. I can say "I feel-ify this to
you" for "I make you feel it" in Esperanto. Please give a better reason
for not being allowed to say this in Hol than "English doesn't do it." The
reason I think I *can* say it in Hol is that it makes sense, period. (I
feel-ify you --- it's something I do that has an effect on you.)
%%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%%
non me tenent vincula, non me tenet clavis, % (nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au)
quaero mei similes et adjungor pravis. % Nick Nicholas, CogSci victim,
--- Archipoeta, _Confessio_. % Univ. of Melbourne, Australia
