[85072] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Syntax, semantics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Wed Sep 17 23:53:13 2008
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:51:25 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <898615.79657.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Terrence Donnelly wrote:
> --- On Wed, 9/17/08, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
>> I think it would help the grammatical discussion of -moH if we
>> clarified whether we were talking about syntax or semantics, and
>> whether we're sure what's what.
>
> Using your terms, how do you interpret the transform {quH qaw worIv}
> -> {worIvvaD quH qawmoH Ha'quj}?
First of all, notice your assumption: that one sentence has been
transformed into another, as opposed to building a new sentence with its
own parts. Is "The ball was thrown by me" simply a transformation of "I
threw the ball," or is it a sentence in its own right? The English
active and passive voices have the same disconnect with syntax and
semantics that the Klingon {-moH} sentence seems to have. By assuming
that one is a changed form of the other, you're forcing a specific
grammatical analysis upon the sentence.
Second, I didn't supply answers with my previous post, only some
definitions and some questions. I specifically did NOT attempt to
definitively analyze the semantics of {mughojmoH SoS}, and I will not do
so for the Skybox example, either. I'll leave that to others. (As I
said, interpretations of this are the source of the contention.)
I will say this: I don't believe that every time a Klingon utters a
causation sentence he builds a non-causation sentence in his head and
then twists the nouns around after adding the suffix. Not any more than
I think that an English speaker builds "I threw the ball" before
twisting it around into "The ball was thrown by me" (and then having his
English teacher tell him to stop using the passive voice).
--
SuStel
Stardate 8715.0
