[83963] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Missing question words
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Mon Jan 14 12:07:17 2008
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:05:19 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <B6A1E958-C16F-4B5B-9E4D-8FB1ED940150@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Doq wrote:
> As for the topic issue,
chIch bIqIDpu''a'?
> I get a sense that you want to require
> distance to be the topic of the paragraph instead of just topic of the
> sentence. I think you can have a paragraph about my home that contains
> a sentence that has 1,000 miles as the topic of that sentence. It is
> the most significant fact packed in that sentence, and it does not fit
> well into either the subject or object role in Klingon.
>
> So, you'd get:
>
> Dun juHwIj'e'. 'IH Hatlh. quv nuvpu'. wa'SaD qelI'qam'e' Hop. vaj
> ghaytanHa' Dalegh.
>
> The thousand qelI'qam is not the topic of the paragraph, but it is the
> topic of the sentence within the paragraph.
>
> I think that high school English classes drum into us the association
> between "topic" and "paragraph". A "sentence", we are taught, is a
> collection of words expressing a "complete thought" (whatever THAT
> is), while a paragraph is a collection of sentences about one
> "topic" (whatever THAT is). They drill these definitions into us until
> it is subconscious. We don't even think about how absurdly vague these
> definitions are. We just have this permanent link between "sentence/
> complete thought" and "paragraph/topic".
>
> Pop a flash card that says, "sentence" in front of us and we say,
> "complete thought". Pop a flash card with "paragraph" in front of us
> and we say, "topic". The cortex is not involved. This is burned into
> our BIOS, somewhere in the medula oblongata.
>
> So, we don't really have a concept of allowing a sentence to have a
> topic that is not related to the topic of the larger paragraph. I'm
> suspecting that Klingon sentences can have separate topics.
>
> Does this make sense to you, or do you think that each sentence in a
> paragraph can only have, as topic, the topic of the paragraph?
It makes sense to me, and I did consider it when I sent my response.
Let's say I'm not so much concerned about the topic of the paragraph or
sentence as I am the attempt to use a topicalized noun to imply a
context not otherwise present. This is illustrated by the need to change
topics to make this implication.
I would be inclined to accept the following:
chuq'e' Hop juHwIj
As for distance, my home is far.
I would be MORE inclined to accept this:
naDevvo' Hop juHwIj
My home is far from here.
But let's look at the first sentence. It's saying, "Let's talk about
distance. Now, about distance: my home is far." When taking about being
far in a sentence we're told is about distance, there is a clear
relationship seen.
I have a hard time changing this to "Let's talk about a thousand
kellicams. Now, about a thousand kellicams: my home is far."
Do you see the disconnect? I'm not really talking about a thousand
kellicams; I'm really talking about the distance to my far-away home
(which happens to BE a thousand kellicams). The measurement isn't the
topic of the sentence. I'm not saying "My home is THAT far," which is
what we're reaching for.
Here's another way one could say this, invoking a sentence fragment:
Hop juHwIj: wa'SaD qelI'qam
My home is far: a thousand kellicams.
The colon seems to better reflect the relationship you're looking for. A
colon doesn't indicate a topic, it indicates further information ahead.
SuStel
Stardate 8037.5
--
Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.
http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html
