[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

In line below.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Feb 12, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A slightly different can of worms...
> 
> I briefly considered proposing {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a' bop} as a chapter title, and possible source for the shorter {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'}. However, if {QamchIyDaq} MUST modify the verb, the sentence would mean something like "At QamchIy, the chapter performs the action of being about a feast". Presumably the chapter would perform a different action at Krotmag, or no action at all.

I read this as meaning, “At QamchIy, it concerns a feast.” Just like the example, “I shot an elephant in my pajamas,” the action of “concerning or being about,” happens across the range of where the subject and object of the action are. Since the object, feast, is in QamchIy, and the chapter can be anywhere, the general assumption would be that we are locating the action at QamchIy because the one location that is stable in the action is the feast, and that’s where the feast is.

> That is not what the chapter title means. I think that's uncontroversial.

I think you have poorly translated the Klingon into English, assuming that the location of the subject is more important than the location of the object. It isn’t. The action of “being about” occurs both for the chapter and the feast, and in this case, it’s the feast’s location defining where the action is happening.

> I have another proposal. I have no evidence to support it, and it feels like grasping, but I'm going to put it out there.
> 
> What if N1-5 N2 is possible only at the start of a clause? In other words, Klingons would understand {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} as a noun phrase on its own, but would reject using that noun phrase as the subject of a sentence because N-5 has a stronger connection to a verb than it does to a noun. (N-5 V) overrides any (N1-5 N2).

Such a proposal might very well make for a very interesting language, but that language wouldn’t be Klingon, unless we get a new emperor who speaks that way. Nothing in TKD or canon suggests anything like what you are proposing. A noun phrase does not get altered in order to fit the subject or object position. Any noun phrase that can be subject can also be object and vice versa, with the single added idea that if it is subject of “to be”, it would have to take {-‘e’} at the end, as subject.

> If we want to use a Chomskyan deep structure explanation, we start here:
> 
> 1. *Dun QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'.
>     The feast at QamchIy was wonderful. (ungrammatical).

No argument here. This is definitely ungrammatical.

> At that point, the verb tells the noun to surrender its N-Daq and puts the N-Daq in it's own cargo hold at the beginning of the sentence.
> 
> 2. QamchIyDaq Dun 'uQ'a'.
>    The feast at QamchIy was wonderful.

You misunderstand. The being wonderful occurs at QamchIy. There is no object, so the location of the subject defines the location of the action of the verb. “In my pajamas, I shot.” 

> We might quibble about the semantics of sentence 2, but I think it works.

You have a good and valid sentence analyzed completely wrong, with no justification. This is not a foundation for further argument.

> Now suppose we wanted to say something like "At QamchIy, the warrior by the statue fought". In other words, there is some warrior by some statue, and I'm saying that he fought once in QamchIy.
> 
> 3. *QamchIyDaq Suvpu' HewDaq SuvwI’.

You’ve mashed together two good sentences to make one bad one:

HewDaq SuvwI’ tu’lu’.

QamchIyDaq Suvpu’ SuvwI’vetlh.

Or if you need to make it one sentence

QamchIyDaq Suvpu’ Hew retlhDaq QamtaHbogh SuvwI’.

The soldier who is standing next to the statue fought at QamchIy.

> Now the verb says "All N-Daq belong to me! {HewDaq SuvwI'}, surrender yours at once!" The verb takes {HewDaq} and tries to fit it in its cargo hold, but the hold is full, so it jettisons one of the N-Daq. If we want to express the idea, we have to recast the sentence.
> 
> 4. HewDaq SuvwI' yIqel. QamchIyDaq Suvpu’.

Well said.

> Now consider the example from earlier, "I stroke the handle on the knife."
> 
> 5. ?tajDaq ret'aq vIyach.

This would be so much simpler as {taj ret’aq vIyach.} I don’t understand why you’d bother complicating things by adding {-Daq}. It just seems like a bad example.

> Again, the verb looks menacingly at the noun phrase and says, "{ret'aq}! Surrender your {tajDaq} at once!" And {tajDaq} replies, "I am your loyal servant; I've already put it in your cargo hold." The verb replies, "Very well then. Carry on.”

It’s like saying, “At the car, I open the door,” instead of saying, “I open the car door.” It sounds stilted and artificial, like you are trying to say something that is different from what one would expect in order to mean something other than “I open the car door” when you really just mean “I open the car door.”

If anything, I’d expect you to say:

ret’aqDaq taj vIyach.

I stroke the knife at the handle.

The location of the knife-stroking occurs at the handle.

I could have said that I stroke the knife, but I’m being more specific to tell you that the stroking is happening at the handle. 

> So that's my proposal. You can put o Type 5 on N1 as long as there's no verb to claim the N1-5 for itself.

Not even close. You never established the points you’ve tried to use as anchors to pull in your argument.

> bI'reng

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160212/3cb1fe0a/attachment-0001.html>