[2711] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: syntactic anomaly
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Jan 22 17:00:04 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 16:35:04 EST
On Jan 22, 4:01am, dls9@aol.com wrote:
> Subject: syntactic anomaly
>
> There is a sentence which has been haunting me for quite some time now...
> {taH pagh taHbe' 'e' 'oH tlhobghach'e'}
Yep. That's one rather gnarley sentence, all right. Let's see, you have
two infinitives (Klingon doesn't have infinitives), and a Sentence-As-Subject
construction (Klingon doesn't have THAT either), and then there's the
{-ghach} tagged on to that bare verb stem... Ugly with a capitol UG! The only
word in that whole sentence that isn't, well, wrong, is the {pagh}.
> At first sight of this atrocity, I was disgusted...
Yep. I respect David Barron a lot, but this sentence hurts to look at.
...
> But the more I think about it, the more it bugs me. As twisted as this
> might seem, I'm almost beginning to think that this sentence could be
> correct, or at least considered acceptable Klingon.
Please, say it isn't so. Yo! Grammarian! JUST SAY, "NO!"
> The logic behind it is that it fits the syntax, although I still doubt one
> could consider the NOUN in a NOUN-PRONOUN construction to be the object of
> the pronominal verb. Traditional grammar, of course, labels it the subject.
> But traditional grammar fails us in describing many other aspects of
> Klingon, as well.
"...it fits the syntax..."? What fits WHAT syntax? Remember that the
object PRECEEDS the verb, so if you are using a pronoun as a verb (ugly, but
occasionally appropriate), then in a NOUN-PRONOUN construction, the noun is
definitely the OBJECT of the verb/pronoun. Assuming that you consider a
reflexive verb like "to be" to HAVE ANY OBJECT AT ALL. I always thought it
had two subjects and stated equivalence between them, but then what do I
know? Still, I've never heard anyone say {jIH tlhIngan}. They always say
{tlhIngan jIH}, so the noun must be the object.
> Because of all the edginess currenlty surrounding the issue of
> Nominalization, I'll offer another example sentence:
>
> {SaQan 'e' 'oH Qu'wIj'e'} = "My duty is to protect you."
>
> Please, if I'm just going nuts again, slap me around a bit, because I think
> that'd be good for me right now. Or else, someone could totally blow me
> away in actually agreeing with me on just one grammatical point....
> NAAHHHH!!!
>
>
> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
First of all, Guido#1, you are among my favorite contributors. I'd LOVE
to agree with you. Unfortunately, this time I think you are off your nut.
[SLAP, SLAP, SLAP, SLAP! Had enough?] You are once again trying to take both
an infinitive (KLINGON DOES NOT HAVE INFINITIVES!) and a Sentence-As-Subject
construction (KLINGON DOES NOT HAVE A SENTENCE-AS-SUBJECT CONSTRUCTION!) and
squeeze them into a sentence instead of rethinking the thought and casting
your meaning through words that do not violate Klingon grammar.
I would personally have recast BOTH these examples. Here's my attempt:
jItaH'a' pagh jIyInHa''a' vItlhob'egh
Unfortunately, Okrand did not have the luxury of time to figure out how
to say this well. He had to respond to "Quick! Gimme 'To be or not to be.'"
His paycheck depended on it. He did a bad job of it, but then he was in an
unfortunate situation. I forgive him. Barron, however, took this hideous
shred of canon and achieved the near impossible: He made it worse.
You see, in the ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the Shakespeare that has become
so popular, they made that entire sentence full of nominalized, passive,
infinitive regurgitations of the verb "TO BE", the favorite word of all
English speakers. "To be, or not to be." So where is the subject here? Who or
what are we talking about? Where is the action? There's no subject, no object
and no action. THIS IS KLINGON? Now add in, "That is the question!" Okay, I'm
game. What IS the question, ANYWAY?
You see, this is English shorthand for what must have been the original
Klingon: "'Do I continue enduring my pain or do I end my life?' I ask
myself."
But I digress... The second example:
> {SaQan 'e' 'oH Qu'wIj'e'} = "My duty is to protect you."
{SaQannIS vI'Ipta'} = "I have intentionally sworn that I must protect you."
Here, I assume that to swear or vow is a "verb of saying", and so {-'e'}
is not necessary. I am also assuming that {-ta'} can be treated like {-pu'}
and used with the verb of saying, even though it is last in the sentence and
would otherwise not have an aspect marker.
-- charghwI'
