[83905] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2 (section 1/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Wed Jan 9 18:55:04 2008
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:50:34 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <721CD00E-64EE-4311-B0FC-0696DA5BA98F@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Doq wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008, at 1:28 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
>
> 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.
Klingon doesn't HAVE prepositional relationships. At best, I'd call the
various "headers" "adverbials" (of which the so-called adverbials
described in TKD are a set).
I DO have to deal with it any time you use a sentence with a topic noun
whose meaning is essential to the sentence, but for which you have given
no clear connection to the rest of the sentence. I have to guess. That
indicates a poor sentence.
> 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.
Sure, it provides context, in that it tells you what the rest of the
sentence is about. But if OTHER context doesn't tell you how it relates
to the rest of the sentence BESIDES that, it's useless. It must be clear
to the listener what your topic has to do with your sentence.
>> 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.
Umm... where's this hostility coming from? The conversation was about
"specifying distance traveled," not "proper use of topic," and I
disagreed with your usage. When you asked why, I told you.
Here's what I think is a pretty simple example of a topic in use:
Qel'e' SID vor ghaH
As for the doctor, he cured the patient.
>> 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.
Many times we cannot determine with certainty what is correct. Unless
Okrand provides an example, we don't ACTUALLY know for sure the correct
subject or object of any verb (and even with examples, it's not always
clear).
You have to accept the fact that we'll never know everything we want to
know. In fact, we'll never, ever be sure we're saying most things
correctly. We can simply speak in "an intelligible, though somewhat
brutish, manner."
>> *{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.
Actually, I was imagining myself as Captain Klaa, tracking Kirk's
shuttle, and changing my ship's course to bear down on him. See how
relying on a topic header has failed us?
(What he really said was {qIrq! DujHomDaq ghaHtaH. HIvHe yIchoHmoH!})
SuStel
Stardate 8024.6
--
Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.
http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html
