[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[qunnoQ HoD]

> Syntax is structure; semantics is meaning. Syntactically, Klingon
sentences have one subject and one object (not including null cases), and
any other words are syntactically just "other words that come at the
beginning." Semantically, > Klingon sentences have subjects (who do the
verb) direct objects (on whom the verb occurs) and indirect objects (who
receives the action; again, not including null cases), and either direct or
indirect object can be placed in the
> syntactic object position, with direct objects trumping indirect objects.
The verb prefix agrees with one of those semantic roles; it is not chosen
syntactically.

this is beautiful..

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:02 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 11/20/2015 11:21 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh wrote:
>
>> I have a nasty suspicion that when dealing with the specific verb and
>> suffix {ghojmoH} that the translator may have fallen to the English
>> “teach” without considering that it really means “cause to learn.”
>>
>
> Okrand was the translator. Errors are always possible. However, this is
> hardly an isolated case.
>
> Another example is our old friend, {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} "it reminds him
> of his heritage." Once again, we have what appears to be a "ditransitive"
> verb, but what we get is the semantic direct object dominating over the
> semantic indirect object for the syntactic object position.
>
> {-moH} doesn't mean "subject becomes object," it means "subject causes
> verb to happen." What verb DOES never changes. The direct and/or indirect
> objects of the verb must be determined semantically, by deciding what the
> action is done TO (direct object) and whom the action is done FOR (indirect
> object). It's not determined by a syntactic rule.
>
> Hence, all of these are valid:
>
>    ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH 'oH
>    it reminds him of his heritage
>
>    ghaH qawmoH 'oH
>    it reminds him
>
>    ghaHvaD qawmoH 'oH
>    it reminds him (of things in general)
>
>    quHlIj qaqawmoH
>    I remind you of your heritage
>
>    SoHvaD quHlIj vIqawmoH
>    I remind you of your heritage
>
> and maybe even
>
>    quHwIj vIqawmoHlu'
>    I am reminded of my heritage
>
> though I don't feel comfortable going so far as
>
>    quHwIj vIqaw'eghmoH
>    I remind myself of my heritage
>
> > I think that a verb’s relationship with its objects are among the
> > most arbitrary of elements in language. A direct object is really
> > almost like a clipped form of an indirect object or a prepositional
> > object, chosen for a specific verb. Another verb may have a different
> > link to the same object.
>
> Yes, but the link is semantic, not syntactic. Semantically, the target of
> {ghojmoH} is the thing learned and the recipient of {ghojmoH} is the person
> who learns it. Syntactically, the object (not direct object) of {ghojmoH}
> is simply the thing to which {ghojmoH}, whatever it means, is done.
>
> Syntax is structure; semantics is meaning. Syntactically, Klingon
> sentences have one subject and one object (not including null cases), and
> any other words are syntactically just "other words that come at the
> beginning." Semantically, Klingon sentences have subjects (who do the verb)
> direct objects (on whom the verb occurs) and indirect objects (who receives
> the action; again, not including null cases), and either direct or indirect
> object can be placed in the syntactic object position, with direct objects
> trumping indirect objects. The verb prefix agrees with one of those
> semantic roles; it is not chosen syntactically.
>
> It's not enough to say "such-and-such verb takes such-and-such noun as its
> direct object." You have to specify what sorts of direct AND indirect
> objects are allowed, and they will be governed by the rules I've presented.
>
> You can't just say, "the object of {ja'} is the person spoken to." The
> semantic direct object of {ja'} is the thing said; the semantic indirect
> object is the person spoken to. Once you've got that, you know that either
> of those can be the syntactic object, and that the thing said trumps the
> person it's said to if there's a question as to which one becomes the
> syntactic object, and that you can use the prefix trick to refer to an
> implicit first- or second-person told-to person while also using the thing
> said explicitly.
>
> > Forgive me if I continue to express things in ways that better fit
> > more conventional grammatical constructions.
>
> List conventions have never been good at explaining things like {ghaHvaD
> quHDaj qawmoH} or {SengmeywIj vIja'laHbe'} or why the prefix trick works. A
> more subtle understanding is needed. Klingon is not, dare I say, a mere
> code where you can plug words into subject and object positions and expect
> to be speaking correctly. In Klingon sentences, semantics are REQUIRED in
> order to understand why things work the way they do, and in order to form
> better sentences.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151121/a1d5af9b/attachment.html>