[2717] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: syntactic anomaly
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Jan 22 21:00:33 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: nsn@vis.mu.OZ.AU (Nick NICHOLAS)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 12:57:57 EDT
In-Reply-To: <9401222135.AA17516@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>; from "Will Martin" a
t Jan 22, 94 4:35 pm
batlh choja', Will Martin quv:
Yes, I know I had to weigh in here.
=> {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}.
Well. I think it's correct-ish, but probably not very Klingonic.
=> 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!"
Mark, do say "Maybe" ;) , because I think Guido is right.
=> 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.
Ok. What English considers an object is not particularly relevant, and
falsifies many a linguistic analysis. This is actually an imporant
question for language typology. We makes claims about SVO and VSO, but
who says all languages have *subjects*? I'll give an example.
Take the subject of intransitives, like "The Terran runs". Let's call it S.
Take the subject of transitives, like "*The Klingon* kills the Terran". Let's
call it A. (Agent)
Take the object of transitives, like "The Klingon kills *the Terran*". Let's
call it P. (Agent)
English groups S and A together as subjects, right? Not all languages do.
Basque, Australian aboriginal languages, Amerindian and Caucasus languages
group S and *P* together; they're known as ergative languages. Thus, they'd
say:
The Terran runs
The Terran kills by the Klingon.
Now, which is the subject? The Terran goes in front of the verb, but the
Klingon is the agent. Well, it's a complicated question, and you'll hear
many answers, including that 'Subject' is a non-discrete quality. (There
are many languages that combine nominative-accusative and absolutive-ergative
paradigms; in Dyirbal, famous Aboriginal language, pronouns have nominative
marking, and nouns ergative. Or vice versa, I dunno.)
So the question of what constitutes an object in Klingon is *not* easy, and
should be resolved primarily on internal evidence. Do the "objects" of
'oH and of HoH *behave* differently? Syntactically, that is, not in 'meaning'.
My impression is, they don't, while they do in English; I may just track
down a syntax textbook and check out the tests they use. The *subjects* of
'oH and HoH behave differently, because the former has obligatory topic
marking.
So I wouldn't go so far as to say 'e' 'oH blah is *wrong*, without further
evidence. I would say it looks suss, but who can say?
Incidentally, as has been pointed out before, the relation encoded by 'is'
in English is *not* primarily an equivalence, but a subset relation.
A Klingon is a humanoid doesn't imply a humanoid is a Klingon.
I think charghwI''s recastings are commenable, but I, for one, would refuse
to rule out the alternatives as ungrammatical.
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breather {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
nsn@krang.vis.mu.oz.au -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias
