[83969] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Missing question words
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Mon Jan 14 16:34:34 2008
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <478B964F.20906@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:32:37 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Several times, people have tended to want to put {naDevvo'} or
{DaqwIjvo'} or somesuch at the beginning of a sentence about how far
away something is. According to the interview cited here recently,
that is already assumed. You'd have to want to change context to
somewhere besides the location of the speaker to need any locative in
a sentence with {Hop} or {Sum} as the verb. The default location is
the location of the speaker.
You don't say {naDevvo' Hop juHwIj.} You just say {Hop juHwIj.}
{naDev} is assumed, by default, and even if you used it, you wouldn't
use {-vo'} because you are not talking about motion. You are talking
about location, and that is handled by {-Daq}, which is assumed for
{naDev}, so you don't have to use it.
Meanwhile, if you do change the location context, I think the suffix
is {-Daq} and not {-vo'}.
{juHwIjDaq Hop vavwI'.} "My father is far from my home." I believe it
would be incorrect to say {juHwIjvo' Hop vavwI'.} I think that {-vo'}
implies actual motion, not distance, and in this construction in
Klingon, you are setting the location in much the same way that a time
stamp sets the time. Essentially, I'm saying, "If I were at my home,
my father would be distant from me." or "If one were at my home, my
father would be distant from one." It would make no sense to say "If I
were from my home, my father would be distant from me." See?
The problem I have with using a colon as you suggest is that the nut
of your presumption is that distances are pretty much always expressed
as noun phrases with no verb. We have no colon described in TKD.
Okrand does use semicolons a lot, for things like {bIr; chuch rur},
but then he's using two verbs.
I think we can just say {Hop juHwIj. wa'SaD qelI'qam}, but I think
that by doing this, we are basically dodging the fact that we have no
grammar to connect the distance to the verb {Hop}. I thought that
topic could do that. If it can't, then I don't think anything else can.
So, we'll fudge it with sentence fragments until Okrand reveals some
other way to do it. Given that, except for specific words like {HIja',
ghobe', majQa'} and their ilk, we don't have any descriptions of
saying things in Klingon without verbs, I don't like this solution.
Then again, given global warming, the impending loss of petroleum as a
fuel source, the war in Iraq and the threat of war in Iran, riots in
Africa and many other significant dangers and discomforts in the
world, it's really not all that important that I am pleased with our
solution for describing distances in Klingon.
Doq
On Jan 14, 2008, at 12:05 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> 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
>
>
