[83903] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2 (section 1/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Wed Jan 9 16:13:17 2008
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <47851231.8090506@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:52:25 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Jan 9, 2008, at 1:28 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> Doq wrote:
>> I respect your opinion, but I don't understand why I fail to convey
>> the meaning of "I traveled 1,000 miles," if in English, I simply
>> shouted, "A THOUSAND MILES!" and then paused and said, "I traveled."
>>
>> For me, that's what the topicalizer does. It's like I'm holding a
>> sign
>> over my head that says, "1,000 miles" and I say, "I traveled".
>> Whatever I say while I hold that sign up is said in the context of
>> what is on the sign. It's not the subject. It's not the object. It's
>> the context. It's the topic.
>>
>> So, if that's not a functional use of topic, what is?
>
> I could also hold up a sign that says "18-wheeler" and say "I
> traveled."
> Did I travel TO an 18-wheeler? No, that would have been a locative.
> Did
> I travel IN an 18-wheeler? Same problem. Because I LIKE 18-wheelers?
> Because I DON'T like them? There is insufficient information to
> determine the exact relationship of "18-wheeler" to my sentence.
I'd assume that you traveled in an 18 wheeler. Why? Because an 18
wheeler is a vehicle. Vehicles travel. The context of your sentence is
18 wheelers, so when you speak of traveling, it makes sense that you'd
be traveling in an 18 wheeler, instead of a car, a motorcycle or a
skate board, which would be outside the boundary of our context of 18
wheelers.
The topic marker ALWAYS lacks specific information about the
prepositional relationship to the verb, usually because there isn't a
clear one in the way that {-Daq} is a location or {-vaD} is a
beneficiary. Insofar as Okrand uses it, it IS the "miscellaneous"
marker. Of all Type 5 noun markers, it is the most vague. Deal with it.
The most meaningful use I have managed to squeak out of {-'e'} (aside
from the formal use if it with nouns following pronouns used as "to
be" verbs) is that it provides context for the rest of the sentence.
It may, or it may not have a subject or object relationship to the
verb, but it is the context that the entire sentence relates to.
That's why people here have argued about it as a "focus" or "topic"
marker. Context is the vague stuff that these two different linguistic
concepts cover, so far as I can tell.
> Your example of the thousand-mile sign suffers from the same lack of
> information. Just because you hold up a sign "1,000 miles" when you
> say
> "I traveled" doesn't mean you traveled 1,000 miles. You could have
> heard
> about a thousand-mile cruise, and decided to sign up, but your trip
> was
> cut short. Maybe you traveled TO the launch-point of that cruise.
My problem here is that, so far as I can tell, you could ALWAYS say
that about EVERY use of {-'e'}, except for the formal use of it in a
"to be" sentence when placed on the final noun. That is the ONLY place
when we know exactly what a noun with {-'e'} on it is doing. In EVERY
other case, {-'e'} marks a noun that is grammatically detached from
the verb, without a clean grammatical definition.
If you believe I'm not accurate about this, please explain how YOU
think {-'e'} is supposed to work, and provide an example to which I
cannot apply your argument and rave about how we don't know enough
about the relationship between this marked noun and the action of the
verb.
I dee-double-dare you. I'm looking forward to your positive
contribution to solving this problem.
> Naturally, in some cases it's easier to guess the relationship of this
> forced topic to the sentence than in other cases. As others have
> suggested, *{wa'SaD qelI'qam jIleng} isn't hard to figure out, even if
> it's not grammatical.
If it's not grammatical, unfortunately, it's not Klingon language. I'm
trying to find something here that actually does conform to the
grammar of the language. I don't think that's asking too much.
> *{luDujHom, He vIchoH} is harder. I could make it
> grammatical as {lupDujHom'e' He vIchoH} ("As for the shuttlecraft, I
> changed course"), but it STILL doesn't mean much.
I think it does, simply because this is what I see as typical use of
{-'e'}. The context is a shuttlecraft. You are changing course.
Shuttlecrafts have courses, so you must be changing the shuttlecraft's
course.
> Did I plot an
> interception course with the shuttle? Did I turn away from it? Did I
> plot a course to rescue my captain on the second moon of Jaglan Beta,
> only to suddenly notice it dive into the sun and explode, so why
> bother
> trying to rescue anybody? The sentence doesn't tell me.
Many times, Klingon sentences are vague and Okrand pulls the "context"
card, saying that context will make things clearer. Meanwhile, I think
{-'e'} is exactly that. It is marking a noun as context for the rest
of the sentence. You can complain that it is insufficient context, but
then, one can ALWAYS complain about insufficient context. You can also
always misinterpret context. It happens every day in English. Why
shouldn't it happen in Klingon?
If I say, "Shuttlecraft!" "I changed course." then you have slightly
more context than if I just said "I changed course." That's the point
of {-'e'} so far as I can tell.
> Then there's a sentence like {Qa'Hom'e' jIQong}. What does THAT mean?
I'd have to assume that you are a Qa'Hom, and you are sleeping.
Otherwise {Qa'Hom} provides no obvious context for you sleeping.
> Topics provide to meaning to the sentence, except "this is what my
> sentence is about." It is not a catchall for anything that SEEMS to
> make
> sense with the sentence but which has no obvious grammatical plug-in
> for it.
I don't think they provide meaning to a sentence. The sentence has its
own meaning. That's what sentences do. That's pretty much all they CAN
do. Meanwhile, meaning is clearer when it has context. Okrand used the
word "topic". Others here have argued that he should have used the
word "focus". Me? I prefer "context". It's just another word. I choose
it just because it better explains what I see nouns do when Okrand
puts {-'e'} on them and I think that if I use the word "context"
others will come closer to understanding this use of the word better,
too.
You are preferring the word "topic", which agrees with Okrand, so I
won't suggest that you are wrong, certainly. Meanwhile, I don't see
you providing good examples of the use of {-'e'} that are immune to
your own argument against all of MY uses of {-'e'}.
If I'm misusing {-'e'}, I'd love to have someone explain to me how it
is supposed to be used more clearly. I invite you to be that person.
> I have no problem accepting the distance traveled, or even the course
> followed, as the object of {leng}. There are many verbs we have no
> examples of usage for, but that doesn't stop us from using them as
> best
> we can. {wa'SaD qelI'qam vIleng} seems perfectly reasonable. If it's
> wrong, Marc Okrand must tell us that before we go telling someone else
> it's wrong.
Perhaps that is the solution then. Just use the distance as the direct
object.
If most people here can agree with that, I'm fine with it. Meanwhile,
I'd still like you to explain how {-'e'} should be used, since you are
so strong in your opinion of how my use of it is inappropriate.
Put up or shut up. It's that simple.
> SuStel
> Stardate 8024.0
Doq
