[588] in tlhIngan-Hol
wotmey
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Apr 17 21:36:22 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: SPEERS@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 19:27 EDT
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
krankorvaD ghItlhHom:
HolQedDaq ghItlhlIj vItIvpu'. Holtejmo' jiH, wot "object"mey
vIja'chuq. tlhIngan parHa'wI'mo' jIH, tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taH.
wot "nob" lo'pu' mu'tlheghlIj. cha' "object"mey tlhap wot, vaj
"bitransitive" pong ooH. cha' "complement" mey tlhap wot.
latlhmu'tlheghmeyDaq wa' "object" poQ wot, vaj "transitive" pong 'oH.
wa' "complement" tlap wot.
pagh "object" tlhapbogh wot, "intransitive" pong.
wot poQbogh "object"mey, "complement"mey pong. wot poQbe'bogh
"object"mey, "adjunct"mey pong. "complement" je "adjunct" QaQ law'
"direct object" je "indirect object" QaQ puS.
This next bit is beyond my ability to write in tlhIngan, so:
I would suggest that complements are the objects to which Okrand
refers in the OVS construction; adjuncts are 'chuvmey,' leftovers, and
should precede the complement in the Klingon sentence.
The three sentences discussed,
1a The captain gave the knife to his father
1b The captain took the knife from his father
1c The captain found the knife under his father
are different in one important respect: the verb 'gave' requires two
complements, whereas 'took' and 'found' require (as most verbs do)
only one complement. The prepositional phrases (PPs) in (b) and (c)
are adjuncts, which basically means that if they were removed, the
sentence would still be grammatical.
As a syncactician, these are important distinctions for me.
Critically, the PP 'to his father' in (a) is not 'just a
prepositional phrase' (as you say in HolQed) in the same way as the PP
in (2):
2 I slept [PP on the bed ]
Does this bear on the issue discussed in the article? Beats me, I'm
new around here! But, the distinction exists in English (and other
Terran languages), and the linguistic facts *may* bear on the
interpretation of Klingon. I'll leave it to the grammarians to work
out the details!
I hope the passage above in Klingon is interpretable. I am compelled
to present everything in tlhIngan Hol, but it may be a while before my
abilities catch up with my desires!
d'Armond Speers
