[Tlhingan-hol] Because you mentioned it (Was: Expressing instrumentality)

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

Thanks.

No further argument. I think you are right. I think ghunchu’wI’ is also right.

It doesn’t feel good to have something this out of whack to my understanding of the way the language works and the way that words in the language convey meaning, but obviously, this is how it works. I wish Okrand had explained it better. I honestly don’t think there’s anything relating to the language that he’s explained worse.

I’ve been stubborn. Then again, I’ve ALWAYS been stubborn. Perhaps I’m maturing enough to give up earlier when I’m wrong (even if it’s still later than it should be).

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Apr 22, 2016, at 11:37 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 4/22/2016 10:51 AM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:
>> It’s like saying, “I give the blood pie to my sister.” “I give the blood pie.” “I give my sister.”
>> 
>> No, I don’t give my sister. I give TO my sister.
>> 
>> English does have the quirk of saying, “I give my sister the blood pie,” and if anyone is trying to teach English to someone else and they get to this example, they should take the time to explain how this weird little example works, because it really is never okay to say “I give my sister” in this context, if you don’t mention the blood pie, and that’s what Klingon is doing here.
> 
> This isn't a quirk or a weird little example. In English, I give my sister the blood pie has a direct object, the blood pie, and an indirect object, my sister. In the sentence I give the blood pie to my sister, there IS NO indirect object: there's a direct object, the blood pie, and a prepositional phrase, to my sister.
> 
> That's because we're changing the syntax, not the semantics.
> 
> You're still analyzing the Klingon sentence according to its semantics, when what you need to do is analyze it according to its syntax only. Forget for a moment what the words mean in connection with the verb: that's semantics. Okrand is constructing his sentences based on syntax.
> 
> 
>> If {ghojmoH} really means “teach” and not “cause to learn”,
> 
> ghojmoH means that learning is done and someone causes that learning to happen. It doesn't "mean" either teach or cause to learn; those are just English translations. Don't analyze a Klingon sentence with reference to the English translation's grammar.
> 
> ghojmoH by itself doesn't say anything at all about what is being acted upon. There is no "correct" meaning of noun to put in the object position. There are nouns that won't make sense if you put them there, but that doesn't make them illegal, just nonsensical. I can say Duj ghojmoH, and while I don't know what it means, I do know that learning happens, someone causes it to happen, and a ship is being acted upon. HOW it's being acted upon is not made clear by the isolated example, but it satisfies syntax to put it there. If you want to understand what the sentence means, you need to supply semantic context.
> 
> In other words, the object of ghojmoH can be anything that makes sense to be "acted upon." If the action of learning is said to act upon a person, you interpret that person as the student. If the action of learning is said to act upon a realm of knowledge, you interpret that knowledge as the lesson.
> 
> Klingon doesn't really have a distinct indirect object. It has a benefactive, which can assume the role of indirect object when it needs to.
> 
>> So, it’s like he took the definition “teach” and then mashed the Klingon through a literal translation of the English,
> 
> It can look that way, but that's not what he did.
> 
> Here's an old chestnut: can you put an object before Qong? Obviously not; you can't *Duj Qong sleep a ship. But there's no SYNTACTIC reason you can't say this. There's no rule that says you can't put an object in front of Qong. It just doesn't make SENSE to do so. Okrand never uses the terms transitive or intransitive to refer to Klingon verbs; I don't think they are classified that way. There are verbs that refer to states or qualities and verbs that refer to actions, but none are actually forbidden from taking objects. There's no rule that says *Duj Quch tlhIngan the Klingon is happy the ship is a syntactically invalid sentence; it just doesn't make any sense, so you don't say it. English be happy uses a completely different grammar than Klingon's Quch, wherein the ship has no syntactic role in the sentence. But the syntax of the Klingon sentence is completely clear.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://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/20160422/53586e46/attachment.html>