[2872] in tlhIngan-Hol
syntactic anomaly
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Jan 30 11:08:25 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 11:52:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS's message of Sun, 23 Jan 94 12:57:57 EDT <1994012301
57.1317@krang.vis.mu.OZ.AU>
>From: nsn@vis.mu.OZ.AU (Nick NICHOLAS)
>Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 12:57:57 EDT
>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.
I think I have to say "Maybe". I mean, Guido looks to be sortakinda right,
if we want to take the literal usage we're accustomed to. the "'e'" refers
back to the previous sentence, making it the object of "'oH". Klingon
pronouns-as-verbs (third-person ones, anyway) behave like transitive verbs,
showing equivalence between subject and object (sorta like rur or rap).
However, it *is* truly hideous. For one thing, 'e' is a little overused, I
think, and possibly "tlhob[ghach]vam 'oH tlhob[ghach]na'" would be better
(or 'oHbej...) For another, charghwI' is right that this "to be" thing is
way overused. Klingon isn't E-Prime, but even so, if you find yourself
using pronouns as verbs, you really should stop and think and try to work
out what're really *behind* that "to be". "That is the question"? What
does that mean? Especially consider what's being lost since Klingon has no
article. Tagging "that" with "-'e'" might work (I usually try to think of
"X'e'" tagged nouns as "it is X that...." and so on), but even that is
obscured with the "-'e'" already used by the pronoun-as-verb construction.
Maybe "'e' tlhobqu'lu'" would be better (or "yu'qu'lu'"... I forget which
is which). "'e' SovnISqu'lu'", and so on.
>=> 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.
Yes, but we do have "puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e'", showing the arguments of "to
be" (which are equated) inhabit both the subject and object places (before
and after the verb).
>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.
My impression, too, is that the "objects" don't behave differently... which
is why I have to say that Guido's sentence is syntactically OK. But that
doesn't mean I like it. My reasoning follows yours.
~mark
