[89543] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu'mey chu': jul
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Fri Sep 9 14:11:27 2011
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:06:01 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110909094722.050acd58@flyingstart.ca>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On 9/9/2011 1:23 PM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
> At 09:36 09/09/2011, lab SuStel:
>> Some list members will sometimes put elements of the sentence of saying
>> on both sides of the sentence that is said, but I believe this is an
>> error.
>
> I don't know--and don't mind--if you're calling me out specifically
> for this,
No, not you specifically. I don't have any names in mind; I just know
that I see it from time to time.
> but I want to speak to a distinction between reported
> speech, for which I totally endorse what you just said, and dialogue
> in a story.
Is there a difference? We don't have any information on how Klingon
written stories may differ from spoken stories, though we know that
Klingons have a strong oral tradition.
> Then when an exchange continues and it is obvious who is speaking, I
> may omit the verbs of saying, with the quotation marks standing in for them.
>
> "'utbe'. HIq HIvje' vIlo'qang."
>
> "'a tajwIj chu' vItob vIneH."
>
> Then, seeing as the quotation marks are already doing the jatlh/ja'
> for me, I may add more sentences, not intending to act as verbs of
> saying, just to put more information in.
>
> "nuqDaq Daje'?" ghel baHwI'.
>
> mIy chIjwI'. "vIje'pu'be'. vISuqmeH HoD vIHoHta'."
I see the transition, and I don't think it's problematical in itself,
but I do notice that your examples always include a description of the
manner of speech. I haven't been following the story, so I don't know if
you've got other kinds of actions in there (e.g., jaghDaq bach HoD.
"vIqIp'a'?").
It all comes down to the question of whether a written dialog differs in
any way from reported speech, and we don't have any examples of the former.
> I just wanted to explain that I was not disregarding the rules or
> thinking I could use anything as a verb of saying. This distinction
> has precedent in English, as an English speaker would not
> spontaneously say. "I hate potatoes John said with disgust." But if
> they were reading a story you wouldn't be surprised to hear it.
You wouldn't say it in English, but you might in Klingon. So far as we
know all reports of what "John said" are done as direct quotations, and
it's not odd the way it is in English.
>> The last kind of sentence-as-object construction is the use of {rIntaH}
>> to indicate finality. I think there's only one example of this, so we
>> don't know a lot about how it works.
>
> I don't think that one is SAO. I don't think the grammar of.
>
> <HoH HoHta' chIjwI' rIntaH> is any different than<HoD HoHta' chIjwI'. Seybej.>
It is SAO. The very last part of the SAO section of TKD says that
{rIntaH} used in this way "is another example of the two-verb (or
two-sentence) construction." Thus, the question becomes, is it {HoD HoH
chIjwI' rIntaH} or {HoD HoH rIntaH chIjwI'}?
("Sentence as object" is a bit misleading, as not every type of SAO
actually has a sentence as an object.)
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
