[244] in tlhIngan-Hol
The Grammarian Responds
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Mar 26 01:36:52 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 16:30-0500
In-Reply-To: <9203251043.AA01814@ima.ima.isc.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 05:43 EST
From: krankor@IMA.ISC.COM (Captain Krankor)
Well, let's see if I can respond to all the stuff that's been thrown
my way recently.
First, as a backdrop, let me just say, regarding me being "taken to
task":
Frankly, I'm delighted.
pabpo'vamneS vItoy' 'e' muquvmoH!
I. -ghach
I understand the rules you propose, and am willing to accept them for
the sake of argument, but in a strict sense they cannot be regarded as
fact until we get more time with a native informant. Your theory -- it
must be called that -- could be falsified by more data. It might turn
out, for example, that all simple verbs can be implicitly nominalized
(letting the ambiguities fall where they may, to be resolved by context
-- cf. Eng. "stance" < "stand") and that <-ghach> is simply forbidden
with these verbs. (Just as -er, -est are forbidden in English with all
"heavy" adjectives.) Or it might turn out that the choice between
implicit and explicit (<-ghach>) nominalization changes the semantics,
selecting, say, a concrete and a metaphorical sense, respectively. (As
in the two major meanings of "stance".) Or it might turn out that
certain simple verbs simply cannot be nominalized with either of these
two mechanisms. This would be disappointing -- it would force us to say
things like <vay' loblu' net ...> instead of just <lob> or <lobghach>.
But disappointing or not, it is equally consistent with the available
data.
II. -law'
We had two sentences using -law' be questioned.
1) tlhInganpu'vaD mIghlaw' nuq?
Those with a keen memory will remember that I myself was the
original author of this sentence. I feel that the objections raised
are based on misinterpretation of the meaning. The question raised,
basically, is who's subjective assessment are we talking about, and
it is concluded that-of-the-tlhInganpu'. No, not so. In this case,
the -law' *does* indicate uncertainty on the part of the speaker,
but, moreover, indicates assumed uncertainty on the part of the
listener/reader *because this is a question*.
In this reading, <law'> is either redundant in this case, or obligatory
in all such questions. All these position-VI verb suffixes still feel
very uncomfortable to me in questions.
Following the
guidelines for questions, nuq is really a placeholder for the
question's answer; thus, when I ask a question like this, it implies
that I expect the answer, semantically at least, to be of the form:
tlhInganpu'vaD mIghlaw' <something>
But you see, such would not _semantically_ answer the original question.
The question was about _your_ perceptions; I answer with mine; it feels
like a non-sequitur. For a little bit of extra evidence, I call Japanese
to the stand. Japanese has particles just like Klingon's, that express
the speaker's attitude or level of certainty about the statement being
made. These include <ne> (roughly "might be") and <yo> ("definitely").
But the important point is that the interrogative particle <ka> ("is it
so that... ?") is just another one of these attitude particles, and is
mutually exclusive with the other ones. I contend that this is a
semantic fact, not (just) a grammatical one in Japanese.
In other words, the intent of the law' was to indicate that I was
soliciting opinions, not factual statements. I rather like it
because it is one of those wonderful things that makes sense in
Klingon, but doesn't translate one-for-one into English. Some
translations might be:
What does it appear is evil to Klingons? What is seemingly evil to
Klingons? What do we think (do you think, does one think) is evil
to Klingons? What is thought to be evil to Klingons?
I wonder whether a native speaker would hear any of these putative
readings. It might be that (as is undoubtedly true in Japanese) the
subjective judgement is always, clearly, and unambiguously first-person
singular.
See? It's a concept, not a word-for-word translation. Note that NOT
a valid translation would be: "What do Klingons think is evil?",
which is how the objector took it. The point is that we are not
Klingons, we don't definitively *know* the answer, the whole point
is to discuss it. The uncertainty is meant to be on us, the
discussion group. So a closer-to-the-mark translation, in that
form, would be "What do Klingons *seem to* think is evil?" (emphasis
added).
I think my sentence is a wholly defensible use of -law'.
The defense is plausible, but if the real meaning of the question turns
out to be "What do Klingons seem to me to think is evil?" then it might
be ungrammatical and certainly wouldn't do what you want. Again, I think
we can't decide on the available data, but it's possible that this use
of <-law'> is just wrong.
2) mungeDlaw'
The objection raised here seems to be directed more at the use of
the mu- prefix than at the -law' suffix. But again, I think
mungeDlaw' for "it seems easy to me" is entirely correct usage.
Basically, the objection hinges on the notion of transitive vs.
intransitive verbs in Klingon, and on strict distinction between
direct and indirect objects. As I have posted in the past, Klingon
simply does not have this distinction, section 6.8 notwithstanding.
I suspect you missed my point. I'm perfectly willing to accept that
dative and accusative objects can be mushed like this -- it's a common
process in many languages, and although there are some where it is
forbidden, you quote good evidence that Klingon isn't one of them. But
the question is not "can a secondary object be marked as if primary?",
but rather "can <ngeD> take _any_ kind of object?" If the answer is
"no", then <mungeDlaw'> must be malformed.
Consider <qoq qIppu' beq> "the crewman hit the robot". I think we'd all
agree that <qoq qIplaw'pu' beq> means something like "apparently the
crewman hit the robot". But what of <yaSvaD qoq qIplaw'pu' beq>? This
sentence certainly can be read as "It seems the crewman hit the robot
for the officer." The question is, can it also be read as "It seems to
the officer that the crewman hit the robot"? The question is as I
stated it in my original mail: can the subjective focus of uncertainty
in a <-law'> sentence be shifted off of ego? You say, "Yes, and the new
focus can be marked as a secondary object." I don't see any evidence of
this, and feel that it would introduce an unlikely amount of ambiguity.
III. leSHey DochvamDaq jIghItlhtaH.
We had two objections to this sentence, one to jIghItlhtaH and one
to leSHey. The original poster has already defended his use of
jIghItlhtaH, and I completely agree with his take on it, with -taH
being a pseudo-clue to futureness.
I agree now too. This is no longer in disagreement.
leS puSDaq DochvamDaq jIghItlhqa'taH.
In a noun-adjective construction, shouldn't the noun affixes go on the
noun? More like <leSDaq puS>? I'm worried lest <puSDaq> mean something
like "in severality", with an implicit nominalization.
You know, I never *intend* for these postings to end up as long as
they do...
P.S. I also never intend for them to take as long to do as they do.
I can't believe it's already light out!
jIHvam rap Dochvam. jIyajchu'.
