[83906] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2 (section 1/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Wed Jan 9 19:49:16 2008
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <47855DCA.7080609@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:46:46 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I did not intend to be hostile. I did intend to challenge you, since
you were so generous in your challenges to me without offering any
positive example of how {-'e'} should be used, since you considered my
examples of {-'e'} to be erroneous.
I can't say I'm impressed with your single example, since you
basically used it in apposition with a pronoun in the sentence. That's
a baby step away from using it on a noun following a pronoun used as
the verb "to be". If that's all we can do with {-'e'}, then it is not
very useful, indeed.
I wish you would offer a more extensive lesson in the use of {-'e'} so
that I and others can learn how to use it well, since I'm apparently
using it so poorly.
Doq
On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:50 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> 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
>
>
